Clinton blowjobs; Nowell qua reactionary; capital accumulatio n; Sawicky query

Seth Ackerman SAckerman at
Wed Sep 9 15:21:12 PDT 1998

Max Sawicky wrote:

"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."

What do you mean by that, Max?

Seth Ackerman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sawicky at [SMTP:sawicky at]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 9:48 AM
> To: lbo-talk at
> Subject: RE: Clinton blowjobs; Nowell qua reactionary; capital
> accumulation; Sawicky query
> >. . . 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.

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list