Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == And then there's Paul Krugman ( http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/he-wasnt-the-one-weve-been-waiting-for/?src=twttwt=NytimesKrugman ): I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == S. Artesian writes: No personal offense intended, but who gives a rat's ass about what liberals think of Obama? Positive, negative-- same-same We need to keep in mind-- the US bourgeoisie select a Republican whenever they're going into a recession, and a Democrat when they think they want out of a recession. I give a rat's ass because liberals and the US bourgeousie are not synonymous, despite what you seem to think. I'm not talking about liberal members of the ruling class (although perhaps you might include Krugman in that group), but liberal members of the working class. Liberalism is a significant current in the working-class movement, and if you don't understand that, and aren't ready to attempt to move people to the left at a time like this, then some of them will move to the right instead (perhaps as just happened in MA; I really don't know enough or care to analyze that election). Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == You know what the most sad and pathetic part of all this is? The liberals are getting it before the CPUSA _ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Brian Latour: You know what the most sad and pathetic part of all this is? The liberals are getting it before the CPUSA When Sir Christopher Meyer became British ambassador to the United States he was instructed by Blair's chief of staff to get up the backside of the White House as far he could and stay there. The CP apparently is following right behind the ambassador, though in this case it's not clear who's giving them the instructions. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Really? I've heard that same tired talk about liberalism being a significant current in the working class ever since... hey, about 2 hours ago when I read Sam Webb's piece-- he too thinks that liberalism is a big current, a significant current. But here's the problem with that Eli-- those liberals who are disappointed in Obama, aren't disappointed in liberalism. They might think Obama has betrayed liberalism; they might think he's sold out his liberalism-- but neither Krugman, nor the author of the open letter to Obama find anything wrong, or inadequate with liberalism. On the contrary, liberalism is just fine and dandy-- it's those nefarious traitors masquerading as liberals that are the problem. Give us all a f--king break [this is meant rhetorically, not directed to you personally], please. It's not the disaffection with liberals that will move workers away from the Democratic Party. It is disaffection with capitalism. So I think that moving workers to the left by pointing out the inadequacies of certain liberals is as ineffective as good old Sam's strategy of allying with the liberals and keeping his criticism on a constructive, fraternal basis. - Original Message - From: Eli Stephens elishasteph...@hotmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == S. Artesian: It's not the disaffection with liberals that will move workers away from the Democratic Party. It is disaffection with capitalism. Well, I'd say two things about that. First, some of the disaffection with liberals turns into disaffection with liberalism, and then with capitalism, as the disaffected person realizes that liberalism will NOT solve the fundamental problems. And second, if I'm going to try to find people who I can help become disaffected with capitalism, I prefer to start with people who think, for example, that government-funded health care is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. People who think that mass transit subsidized by the government is a GOOD thing, not an affront to freedom. People who think that public education is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Etc. Not to mention people who aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic. Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Huffington, Krugman and others are important as bellwethers. Voters for Obushma voters were impressionistic, at best, but many were sincere and have started to learn...finally. It's to the credit of those liberals who led them into the trap and some of them are now openly expressing their doubts as well. Good for them. But it is interesting that the Huffingtons, Krugmans, etc. are clearly more sincere about change than not only the remnants of the CP but of the Carl Davidsons and latter day CP-wannabees. ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Ah... now I understand. All those good things-- so like when Obama actually earmarked $13 billion for inital development of high speed rail, that was a good thing? And when the budget of the Federal Transit Administration was practically doubled, that was a good thing? And when Obama increased the money available to the states for Medicare that was a good thing? And since all of that-- all those good things have made little if any difference in the expansion of poverty, in the numbers of homeless, in the rate of evictions, in unemployment, my point is that good or bad liberalism and its discontents are the products of the economic conditions, not the producers; that the distinctions between good and bad, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican are immaterial, illusory. I was thinking that maybe the place to start was actually some other place, like with those who have absolutely no interest in good liberalism or bad liberalism-- like maybe the immigrant workers who confront the unified class policy of the bourgeoisie in its identical good and bad, liberal and conservative manifestations. I do not think Krugman, Huffington, are any more committed to change than Greenspan or Kristol. They are all committed to the preservation of capital, private property. - Original Message - From: Eli Stephens elishasteph...@hotmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == S. Artesian: I was thinking that maybe the place to start was actually some other place, like with those who have absolutely no interest in good liberalism or bad liberalism-- like maybe the immigrant workers who confront the unified class policy of the bourgeoisie in its identical good and bad, liberal and conservative manifestations. So according to your theory immigrant workers have no interest in public transportation, public health care, public education, etc.? I do not think Krugman, Huffington, are any more committed to change than Greenspan or Kristol. They are all committed to the preservation of capital, private property. I can't speak to the underlying motivations of Krugman or Huffington. I'm talking about the average liberal, the regular people who are workers, students, etc., just like the people on this list. Most of them no doubt think that capitalism is the best way to achieve goals (like health care, education, transportation) which they share with socialists. And current events are helping to shake that belief, because even the great liberal hope Obama, with huge majorities of his fellow Democrats in Congress, is showing them the reality of expecting change to come from such an approach. Do you want to stand back and ignore that, or go talk to them and convince them that the best way to achieve such goals is through a socialist transformation of society? Eli Stephens Left I on the News http://lefti.blogspot.com _ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Liberal disgust with Obama
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Eli wrote-- So according to your theory immigrant workers have no interest in public transportation, public health care, public education, etc.? That's not what I said or wrote. I responded to your linking public transportation, public healthcare, public education with GOOD liberalism. That's what you wrote. That you wanted to work with appeal to liberals who thought those were good things--- and that those things logically then are products of good liberalism. What you have done Eli is abstract things from their social relations-- public transportation good, public healthcare good. But it's not public transportation or public healthcare we get. We get class-based transportation; class-based government healthcare. And what does that liberal public transportation get us? Masses of debt which eats away and eventually devalues completely public transportation. And it gets us public transit agencies that lobby against the right to strike. And the publicly funded healthcare? Lots of money for the healthcare industry. Eli speaks as if somehow that connection between government, a liberal capitalist government and healthcare, mass transportation is a dominant factor. Well, it might be a dominant factor if your goal is to have the US model itself along the lines of France, with very good public healthcare and absolutely stellar mass transportation. Even that's an abstraction-- is your goal to have the US bourgeoisie model itself along the lines of the French bourgeoisie? You produce two statements from two leading lights of US liberalism expressing their disaffection with Obama and from that you make this gigantic leap to 1) mass disaffection with liberalism as a whole 2)identification of government funding mass transit, government funding of healthcare as the critical issues that will lead liberals to the cause of socialism. Yet you are ignoring exactly what this government or any government of liberals funding of mass transportation or healthcare means or brings-- it means more money for the bourgeoisie. I think Marx had it right when he proclaimed that the first principle of our party is not one farthing for this government. Marxists don't abstract a service, a social need, from the struggle against a specific class and its specific organization of property and labor that exist in opposition to those needs. To New Tet: You voted for Obama just to show that a black US man could fuck-up just like a white US man? I understand the sentiment, but it's only that-- a sentiment, an indulgence. Let me ask you how's that working out for you? Do you think you've accomplished the goal, and we have a black man who has proven himself capable of fucking up as much as a white man? And exactly what will that, has that accomplished? You HOPE there will be a zero-sum effect? That for every reactionary, we get a radical? Doesn't work that way, comrade, not even a little bit. If it did, the revolution would have taken place a long time ago. How's that working out for the working class as a whole? Would you recommend doing it again-- I mean after all there have been a lot more white US men fucking up in the White House than our first and only so far black US man-- not to mention all the white women, black women, Hispanic men, Hispanic women, gay white men, gay black men, gay black women, gay white women that might demand equal time in the White House, and make equal claims on your vote? Isn't all you are really doing is playing a variation on the old Let's make it worse, so it has to get better ploy? Card check was dead months ago. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
