Clinton blowjobs; Nowell qua reactionary; capital accumulation; Sawicky query

Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at
Wed Sep 9 14:12:31 PDT 1998


Whom should I call? (I am willing.) Barkley Rosser On Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:48:00 -0400 Max Sawicky <sawicky at> wrote:

> >. . . But I can't
> >help but think that the right has scored a tremendous
> >victory in turning all political discourse into the
> >politics of blowjobs. . . .
> True.
> >If we "stand by" Clinton we get
> >to defend blowjobs in office, if we "dump him" then we
> >have validated blowjob politics as a viable tool of the
> >right to use against liberals/lefties who manage to get
> >elected.
> If he's dumped I think the debate goes back
> to issues, which would be a good thing. The
> question is how much of it rubs off on the
> elections this year.
> > We are going to have a difficult time finding
> >a "liberal" candidate who doesn't and never has done
> >drugs, doesn't get blown by the wrong people, doesn't
> >cheat on his taxes, and who has never taken a dime from
> >s.o. with his/her hands on a business deal, isn't
> >married to s.o. who has been, shall we say "aggressive"
> >in business (cf. Ferraro), who looks good in a tank and
> >wasn't governor when a black rapist was paroled (cf.
> >Dukakis).
> Perhaps not, but the issue is really whether
> we can have one who isn't so easy to catch
> because his/her behavior isn't so flagrant.
> Here the answer I'd say is yes. BTW, Wellstone
> is the cleanest baby you've ever seen. Note
> also that the bad guys had Barney Frank right
> where he wanted them, but he beat them and
> is in better shape than ever.
> >That's an exiguous universe. If the world is
> >at a point where every liberal gets the Clinton
> >treatment and every rightwinger's peccadilloes are
> >ignored, then we are at a point where liberal reform is
> >impossible. Which might in fact be the case.
> It has occurred to me, in the same vein, that
> Republican control over extensive areas of the
> State is enabling them to delegalize the Democratic
> Party, for all practical purposes. If this is what
> comes to pass, then I would start agreeing with
> Louis much more often.
> >. . .
> >2. It was suggested that I am a reactionary sell
> >out. . . .
> Moral assaults usually come from hypocrites
> who lack substantive arguments, among other
> virtues. I shouldnt' worry about it.
> > . . .
> >4. Max asked "what else" could be done besides Tobin
> >taxes. May I point out that the GT recommends more
> >equal distribution of purchasing power (propensity to
> >consume). Worldwide minimum wage, worldwide GINI
> >coefficient policies, might be a good place to start.
> Min wage is in play now. Equalizing purchasing
> power via taxes is not. It's worth talking about,
> but the prior argument that has to be sold is
> stimulating consumption. Third, the connection
> of either of these to the global financial
> events seems weak.
> >Note that bourgeois environmental reformism is
> >redistributive to the extent A) that it fosters
> >investment that might not otherwise occur and B)
> >provides benefits for all classes, sometimes more for
> >the poor than for the rich (simply because the poor are
> >more numerous). But if you have a broken leg and can't
> Most research concludes the contrary. The
> net benefits tend to be regressive. But
> what does this have to do with responses
> to the global financial situation?
> >see a doctor I'm not sure what good it does to be
> >breathing ozone-free air. I suppose it helps "at the
> >margin." But it's the case that in US electoral
> >politics you have to get to the middle class, which
> >deals more favorably with the environment than with the
> >poor.
> >
> >Oh yes, and Max--you can socialize means of production
> >gradually without going to full central planning. You
> Sure, but the whole is much different than
> a set of the parts. Planning an economy
> is light-years from running an enterprise,
> even a very large one.
> I don't have a problem with public enterprise.
> A fair part of my time is devoted to the
> privatization issue. Gas and water socialism
> is fine with me.
> >know, an oil company here, a utility there. Put the
> >profits into something useful. Why should OPEC driven
> >rents realized by domestic companies (of whatever
> >nation) "at the margin" go into more oil exploration?
> >Why not put 'em into something useful like friendly
> >fuels. (Note: separate topic: why state-owned
> >companies are a problem for the state).
> O.K. by me.
> >But as I used to tell people when I was writing about
> >the oil industry: you can't nationalize the oil
> >industry without first nationalizing the goverment.
> Taxing it should be sufficient.

-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list