> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11825643
>
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11825643>
> [WS:] It seems that which party is in power makes little difference as far
> as austerity measures are concerned. Socialists may be more reluctant about
> them but they will comply nonetheless when the capital demands them. So
> how
> realistic is it to bash Democrats, who are not socialists, not even close,
> for yielding to the demands of capitalists?
>
W, unless your position is now that the Democrats intended to impose austerity from the get-go rather than that the Democrats were just being realistic, you're still missing the point that - even within the purview of neoliberal policy - Obama could have fought for a great deal more than he compromised away without a fight. If, in fact, a larger stimulus had been passed, and the Admin had shown any offensive legislative or electoral strategy at all in re: the Bush tax cuts, etc., they'd still probably be seeking to impose austerity but the state of the economy might easily be imaged to be better than it is. I really don't think you see that the criticism Marv and I are making is not an exogenous critique... our argument is one endogenous to the Democratic Party, they blew it on their own terms and crushed their electoral hopes in the process.
>
> PS. I am flying to Lisbon today evening - provided of course that they do
> not cancel my flight. But hey, it is a small price to pay in the struggle
> against capital, even if "our side" seems to be losing battle after battle
> :).
>
> Wojtek
>
But, again,talking about losing battle after battle makes no sense in the context of your embrace of the Obama administration's refusal to battle at all and your critique of critics of that refusal... now, if you were advocating strikes and protests as an expression of that criticism then you'd sound more like Marv and I but I can't see how you could advocate for strikes and protests without embracing the criticisms in the first place.