[lbo-talk] Tariq Ali endorses Kerry, denounces Nader

[Michael Dawson]

Yes, but it's also arguable that talking about "corporate socialism" is
actually a way of saying that socialism is desirable, but that it's simply
inverted in our society.  Chomsky does this sometimes, too.  And I think
it's quite accurate and useful, at a certain level of analysis.  Certain
industries and even individual corporations are "too big to fail," so they
never do, whatever the public input required.  Who would own a car if the
state didn't build and maintain the roads?

And Doug now simply hates Nader, and excessively so.  He said "bingo" to
Raimondo's mangling of Nader's argument.  Nader is not any kind of a
conservative.  He's a modern populist democrat.

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of snit snat
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 9:40 PM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org; lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Tariq Ali endorses Kerry, denounces Nader

At 01:23 AM 10/31/2004, Michael Dawson wrote:
>You're right about the nuance of what Nader says about "corporate
>socialism," but Raimondo's piece was saying Ralph is an old conservative,
>and suggesting that he somehow is attacking the DP because of the very idea
>of socialism, rather than because of his special use of the term.  And Doug
>piled on.

Ahh, I see. I didn't read it that way. I just read Raimondo as saying that 
Ralph criticizes corporate socialism, but his audience doesn't 'get it' 
when someone like Raimondo cheers. I didn't see a thing in that article 
that suggested that he's opposed to the DP b/c of he's opposed to socialism.

I dunno--and don't really care--but it does seem like <flush>Ralph</flush> 
has some sympathies that just seem counterproductive.  I don't think he 
ought to appeal to anti-socialist sentiment by calling it corporate 
socialism. Calling things corporate welfare is similarly problematic. It 
plays on the widespread bias against welfare was legitimate in the first 
place. Why does <flush> Ralph </flush> do that? It's simply expedient? 
Doesn't make sense to me. If the guy really understands that he's never 
going to get significant votes, then he has nothing to lose by being 
honest. It just seems wrong to try to get people on board by using rhetoric 
that is contradictory. OT1H, he's a good socialist. OTOH, he's using 
rhetoric that plays on the popular u.s. sentiment against socialism. It 
doesn't make sense to encourage a popular sentiment that ultimately 
undermines your supposed program.

But again, not applying it to Kerry is not required of the critic. Your 
charge is that the person criticizing Nader is a hypocrite. Doesn't hold up 
as real argument in the first place. In the second place, Doug has said 
plenty of shity things about Kerry that I don't think he needs to reiterate 
for the 100 gazillionth time.

kelley

"We live under the Confederacy.
We're a podunk bunch of swaggering
pious hicks."

                --Bruce Sterling 

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk