[lbo-talk] reavealed: Obama really really is a socialist, really

[Bhaskar Sunkara]

Well, it is qualitatively different.  There were some advantages to the
Obama administration as opposed to a McCain one.  Like Adolph Reed said, the
"terms of defeat" are better. Democratic administrations are better than
the alternative.  But to socialists it should matter where the impetus for
these "advances" came from... did they come from a labor movement cajoling a
bourgeois politician or from a technocrat better trying to manage the
capitalist state. That's a whole lot of qualitative difference.

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:


> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > CB:  Wishy-washy , conciliatory reforms. like the Pay Equity Act or
> > permitting stem cell research ? Defending Roe vs Wade with Supreme
> > Court appointments ?  ending the war in Iraq ? health care reform ?
> > Saving GM and Chrysler ( and the UAW) ?
>
> I'm actually starting to side with Charles on this: Nationalizing AIG
> and GM, increasing demand (through training, tax breaks, etc.), taking
> more of a lead in industrial policy (e.g., $50 billion investment in
> green energy and modernization), longer unemployment benefits,
> reregulating finance. A lot of this stuff is that socialists said
> should have been done. It might be quantitatively less than they
> wanted, but it's not qualitatively different.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>