[lbo-talk] David Brooks, so worried

[andie nachgeborenen]

Great, post-communist (hyper capitalist) China and Vietnam and oil-rich Venezuela are going to help save world capitalism because they'd be taken down in the wreckage if we fell, and they can't afford to let us fall because the Asians are capitalist now and the Venezuelans, despite fiery rhetoric, can't live without is. And we are in no position to make anything good of even a downturn, much less the worst crises since '29, because our ideas have no traction at home and we have no organization here. Somehow I don't think this is revolutionary progress, however ironic it is that the Wise Men of Capitalism have to adopt "socialist" measures to deal with the crisis. Maybe we will be able to make something out of this, so far hard to see. 

Anyway, I'm bored with third world-ism. Haven't we been down that path to many times, China, Vietnam, Cuba, whoever, some revolutionaries abroad in some underdeveloped countries re going to somehow show us the way, inspire us, light the spark that starts the prairie fire? Chuck-O was right about so many things, including the fact the working class will have to settle with its own national bourgeoisie. The most the Cubans or the Venezuelans can do is cheer from the sidelines. 

Our guys have to start to be persuaded that it's not insane, stupid, or wicked to join the home team. So fat, we have gotten them as gar as believing that (a) Hillary Rodham Clinton cares about working people, and (b) Barak Obama might be be better at dealing with this mess than McCain Plain. Which last is true, but isn't exactly a revival of left thought and organization.

--- On Sun, 10/12/08, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:


> From: andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] David Brooks, so worried
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 4:54 PM
> I've said as much in print. But for my purposes here
> these issues don't matter. The main point is that the
> effoert has delegitiamted any attempt to build socialism and
> we have no ideas and no organization. The other side is
> delegitimated, but still has money and organization.
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 10/12/08, Chris Doss
> <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] David Brooks, so worried
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Date: Sunday, October 12, 2008, 4:21 PM
> > I think it makes more sense to view the Stalin period
> as
> > being characterized by a industrial modernization
> project
> > using socialism as a legitimating ideology rather than
> as an
> > attempt to build socialism.
> > 
> > --- On Sun, 10/12/08, andie nachgeborenen
> > <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I do not think this was because Stalin and Mao
> were
> > > monsters, your words not mine, although they
> were. I
> > think
> > > it is probably and most deeply because Marx's
> > original
> > > idea that you cannot build socialism in one
> country
> > and a
> > > backward one that that was correct, and also (you
> will
> > > disagree but this is what I think) we have
> failured to
> > > anticipate the limits of planning that Hayek
> outlined.
> > Both
> > > of these are structural factors. For the present
> it
> > > doesn't matter whether they are right either
> for
> > my
> > > purposes or for yours. 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >       
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 
> 
>       
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk