CB: I think you should elaborate your "bully pulpit" theory of the residency. It is a quaint expression, but I'm not sure the President, articularly Obama, has any such ability to bully rightwing Democrats nto deserting their ruling class constituents. Clinton didn't.
Lest there be any confusion: The expression, "bully pulpit", coined by Theodore Roosevelt, means "excellent pulpit", not a pulpit from which to bully people.
Jim
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 7:16 pm Subject: lbo-talk Digest, Vol 1384, Issue 5
Send lbo-talk mailing list submissions to
lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk r, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org You can reach the person managing the list at
lbo-talk-owner at lbo-talk.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific han "Re: Contents of lbo-talk digest..."
oday's Topics:
1. Re: Black Panther Coloring Book (Carrol Cox)
2. Enthusiasm (Somebody Somebody)
3. Re: Divided We Fail (Chuck Grimes)
4. Kritikos V.7 Sept.-Oct. 2010 (Nicholas Ruiz III)
5. Re: Black Panther Coloring Book (Marv Gandall)
6. Enthusiasm (c b)
7. Re: Enthusiasm (Marv Gandall)
8. Re: Enthusiasm (Wojtek S)
9. Re: Black Panther Coloring Book (Chuck Grimes)
10. Re: Enthusiasm (Marv Gandall)
11. Re: Enthusiasm (Marv Gandall)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:06:12 -0500 rom: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Black Panther Coloring Book o: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> essage-ID: <402564458CE44C23A72638A1C701A77B at CarrolHPDesk> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I notice that Chuck still finds it necessary to deny that the Panthers could e compared to Weatherman. I thought I had mentioned several times on this ist a key fact about Fred Hampton. Among his many activities during the ast three months of his life, a major one was going from black high school o black high school giving the same speech: a harsh criticism of eatherman. Not only were the Panthers not comparable to Weatherman, they ejected completely, their very existence rejectected everything Weatherman tood for. Chuck makes some important points in his post, but he also repeats some erious falsities about the Panthers and the '60s. The Panthers were a ontinuation, NOTa rejection, of the Civil Rights Movement at which Chuck neers. That sneer would have outraged the Panthers. Other aspects of Chuck's post are more complicated, and I hope to return to hem in another post. Carrol
----------------------------- Message: 2 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:09:23 -0700 (PDT) rom: Somebody Somebody <philos_case at yahoo.com> ubject: [lbo-talk] Enthusiasm o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <912656.67904.qm at web57801.mail.re3.yahoo.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Marvin: That may be true of the tea party milieu, but the larger part of the isgruntled population has legitimate cause to believe bolder measures on jobs, ousing, healthcare, and financial regulation were necessary and within reach, nd to hold Obama responsible for falling short.
omebody: The bottom-line is that strike activity in the U.S. is non-existent, ampus radicalism has declined since the early days of the Iraq War, and instead f marches on Washington demanding jobs we have Comedy Central fan-club atherings. But, somehow, Obama, a technocrat who ran on a centrist platform, as supposed to single-handedly reawaken the class struggle. Frankly, it's ifficult to recall any leader who in such politically quiescent times, has ever ade so bold a move. I ask it seriously and without sarcasm: can you name any?
The majority of Americans may be disgruntled, but their level of political onsciousness is infantile, and their dissatisfaction with the status quo is warfed by their contempt for left-wing alternatives. The bourgeoisie is highly ffective at divorcing the natural operations of the market cycle from human gency operating in Washington. It's only the latter which receives either the re or the disappointment of the American people.
----------------------------- Message: 3 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:10:49 -0700 rom: "Chuck Grimes" <c123grimes at att.net> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Divided We Fail o: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> essage-ID: <3A0AD7745AC74BC9A6072BC49B95D51F at fx0> ontent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";
reply-type=original But we won?t get those policies if Republicans control the House Paul Krugman ------- Krugman has not been paying attention. `We' elected a majority in the House, enate, and a President who had a full two years to create those policies nd build up the laws necessary to enforce them. They were put into office o get out of the wars and fix the economy. They did as near to nothing as hey thought they could get away with. I used to think the Democrats were spinless. I've changed my mind. They are talworth defenders of Wall Street and the military industrial paranoid ecurity state. The primary job of the Democrats was to defang public entiment to get out of war and fix the economy. The Democrats succeeded rilliantly. (This was Carrol's line, that I resisted for a long time.) However, I agree with the conclusion, we are headed into the abyss. The epublicans will probably make the trip shorter and faster. CG
------------------------------ Message: 4 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:19:27 -0700 (PDT) rom: Nicholas Ruiz III <editor at intertheory.org> ubject: [lbo-talk] Kritikos V.7 Sept.-Oct. 2010 o: nruiz at intertheory.org essage-ID: <319666.92637.qm at web304.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Kritikos V.7 September-October-2010
Yeats, U2 and Imaginative Experience...(j.bisz) http://intertheory.org/bisz.htm
icholas Ruiz III, Ph.D RIII for Congress 2010 ttp://intertheory.org/nriiiforcongress2010.html ___________________________________ ditor, Kritikos ttp://intertheory.org ___________________________________ irector, Florida Forum for Social Justice ttp://intertheory.org/ffsj.htm ------------------------------ Message: 5 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:20:30 -0400 rom: Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Black Panther Coloring Book o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <007EEFF2-3D9D-4CAC-B572-3562C6C9F8BA at gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Charles, Carrol or anyone else know how many publicly active Panthers there were t the peak of the BPP's influence, and in how many cities? At least a thousand n about a dozen cities, as best I can recall, which would have made it omething much more than a tiny conspiratorial terrorist group.
----------------------------- Message: 6 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:32:48 -0400 rom: c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> ubject: [lbo-talk] Enthusiasm o: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> essage-ID:
<AANLkTinxJxuYaeZ87GdbmNcsd5A=aRB67xCyFKvKqnxw at mail.gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Marv Gandall
Even had Fletcher neglected to make that point, he is - and has been or a long time - far more politically active, I am sure, than Beck nd other cyber critics. Also, it should be noted that most people, even the most politically ware, don't spontaneously mobilize. It requires leadership. But I now you and Fletcher know that. Finally, Obama may never have, as you've claimed elsewhere, mustered nough congressional votes for a bigger stimulus, tougher bank egulation, public healthcare, or mandatory mortgage relief. But it as well within the realm of possibility that, given the political ill, he could have forced congress to act by using bully pulpit of he Presidency to sustain and rally the broad coalition which ropelled him to power. Instead, he frittered away rather than built n this political capital by ignoring the American people and eutering all of these initiatives in backroom dealing with corporate obbyists, conservative Democrats, and a handful of powerless moderate" Republicans. ^^^^^ B: I think you should elaborate your "bully pulpit" theory of the residency. It is a quaint expression, but I'm not sure the President, articularly Obama, has any such ability to bully rightwing Democrats nto deserting their ruling class constituents. Clinton didn't. Overall, Obama's "timid" conduct was in the same vein as the way he onducted his campaign , if you recall. He was so non-confrontational t was amazing. I'm sure the O admin's calculation was why change rom their campaign approach that worked. And rationally, the Tea arty should have been relegated to the fringe. But the media ompletely reversed itself from the campaign and turned on Obama, egitimized the Tea Party's pretense of not being Republicans, who revented Obama from being more left. This is evidence of a focused uling class decision to undermine what they had supported in the ampaign. Couldn't have a new Obama generation created. With hindsight Obama may have acted differently. At this point, that oncrete situation is passed. Only political Peter Pans conclude that his means don't support Obama or Democrats. ^^^^^^^^ It's not only Obama's liberal and left-wing critics who have indicted he administration for its Hoover-like timidity in the wake of the iggest crisis since the Depression. A host of commentators from cross the political spectrum writing in both the financial and ainstream media have offered up the same criticisms all year long. t's plain wrong for both Obama and yourself to suggest the verdict bout to be delivered next week against his administration by the merican people is mostly owing to their obtuseness. That may be true f the tea party milieu, but the larger part of the disgruntled opulation has legitimate cause to believe bolder measures on jobs, ousing, healthcare, and financial regulation were necessary and ithin reach, and to hold Obama responsible for falling short. ^^^^^^^ B: Well, no I'm correct that it is "obtuse" and infantile for a iberal or leftist to not vote for Obama because he tried to ompromise with the center just as he campaigned. Why wouldn't he ontinue his winning campaign strategy ? That's my central point. hey need to get real. As to the commentators, the media capitalists ave shifted to stabbing O in the back, cutting him way down to ize;stopping the left shift he represents from Bush. But I don't think the liberals are the problem in large numbers. t's Independents, not liberals or lefts, who are the problem. Plus, I hink the Tea Party racism is resonating with a lot of people who were lat in 2008 because Bush was such a failure. Racist stay aways in 008 are fired up now to be anti-O. There is near unanimous agreement n the Black community on this. There is a Black libertarian on a ocal talk radiio show who for years has been calling in on how Black eople need to stop complaining about racism. Now he's on the radio very day with stories about Tea Party gross racism. Even his eyes can ee the racism driving this anti-O ! You and most of the list here ontinue to underestimate the centrality of racism in the American ody/mind politic and in this sudden sea change from just two years go. It is a fundamental shortcoming of the political analysis here. Overall, the more disturbing problem is that significant masses of the merican working class seem to have very fucked up political thinking. "Below" , the "bottom" don't seem to be enough potential or conscious o make progressive change . In fact there's a lot of rotten onsciousness.
----------------------------- Message: 7 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:05:51 -0400 rom: Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Enthusiasm o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <2A5BDA66-925D-4C2A-9028-766FD710E38E at gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
n 2010-10-29, at 5:09 PM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
> Marvin: That may be true of the tea party milieu, but the larger part of the
isgruntled population has legitimate cause to believe bolder measures on jobs,
ousing, healthcare, and financial regulation were necessary and within reach,
nd to hold Obama responsible for falling short.
Somebody: The bottom-line is that strike activity in the U.S. is non-existent, ampus radicalism has declined since the early days of the Iraq War, and instead f marches on Washington demanding jobs we have Comedy Central fan-club atherings. But, somehow, Obama, a technocrat who ran on a centrist platform, as supposed to single-handedly reawaken the class struggle. Frankly, it's ifficult to recall any leader who in such politically quiescent times, has ever ade so bold a move. I ask it seriously and without sarcasm: can you name any?
The majority of Americans may be disgruntled, but their level of political onsciousness is infantile, and their dissatisfaction with the status quo is warfed by their contempt for left-wing alternatives. The bourgeoisie is highly ffective at divorcing the natural operations of the market cycle from human gency operating in Washington. It's only the latter which receives either the re or the disappointment of the American people.
don't characterize the calls for bolder action on all these fronts originating ithin the bourgeoisie as calls for "class struggle." See, for example, Krugman, eich, Stiglitz, Baker, and Galbraith and elements of the DP congressional aucus or, farther to the right, Volcker, Martin Feldstein, Simon Johnson, ormerly of the IMF, Willem Buiter, now of Citi, as well as conservative ublications like the Economist (criticizing Obama's "timid" refusal to allow ankruptcy judges to write down mortgages) and the majority of opinion pieces in he Financial Times, including the one by Martin Wolf below. And, yes, I think Obama doing fireside chats on television, excoriating the atter day "malefactors of great wealth", appointing a Pecora-style commission o conduct a televised probe of the Wall Street practices which produced the risis, continuing to stump the country, and encouraging the tens of millions ho enthusiastically voted for him to bombard congress with emails, to petition, o demonstrate, to organize, and to engage in other forms of mass action in upport of jobs, housing, and healthcare - all of these activities, none of them lien to the American political tradition, would have put the country and the emocrats in a much better place than they are today. It could also be said of most disgruntled Americans in 1932 that "their level of olitical consciousness is infantile, and their dissatisfaction with the status uo is dwarfed by their contempt for left-wing alternatives. The bourgeoisie is ighly effective at divorcing the natural operations of the market cycle from uman agency operating in Washington?" At certain critical junctures, leadership is important, and mass opinion can hift rapidly. In fact, since the election, and particularly during the past ear, we've seen such a dramatic shift in opinion - alas, in the wrong direction nd largely attributible in this case to (mis)leadership.
----------------------------- Message: 8 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:22:15 -0400 rom: Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Enthusiasm o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID:
<AANLkTik=vD5EQY-Rk8XDdsjcLEEphUi+wuef+01G_k=P at mail.gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 [WS:] Marv, your comparison is wrong. In 1932, the capital was on its nees, with not many places left to go, and a threat of a Communist evolution was very tangible and looming. And the expertocracy had a lear alternative to the market orthodoxy. oday, the capital got a black eye, but otherwise faces clear and riendly skies. Not a cloud in sight. And no alternative either. Wojtek
n Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
On 2010-10-29, at 5:09 PM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
> Marvin: That may be true of the tea party milieu, but the larger part of the
isgruntled population has legitimate cause to believe bolder measures on jobs,
ousing, healthcare, and financial regulation were necessary and within reach,
nd to hold Obama responsible for falling short.
>
>
> Somebody: The bottom-line is that strike activity in the U.S. is
on-existent, campus radicalism has declined since the early days of the Iraq
ar, and instead of marches on Washington demanding jobs we have Comedy Central
an-club gatherings. But, somehow, Obama, a technocrat who ran on a centrist
latform, was supposed to single-handedly reawaken the class struggle. Frankly,
t's difficult to recall any leader who in such politically quiescent times, has
ver made so bold a move. I ask it seriously and without sarcasm: can you name
ny?
>
> The majority of Americans may be disgruntled, but their level of political
onsciousness is infantile, and their dissatisfaction with the status quo is
warfed by their contempt for left-wing alternatives. The bourgeoisie is highly
ffective at divorcing the natural operations of the market cycle from human
gency operating in Washington. It's only the latter which receives either the
re or the disappointment of the American people.
I don't characterize the calls for bolder action on all these fronts riginating within the bourgeoisie as calls for "class struggle." See, for xample, Krugman, Reich, Stiglitz, Baker, and Galbraith and elements of the DP ongressional caucus or, farther to the right, Volcker, Martin Feldstein, Simon ohnson, formerly of the IMF, Willem Buiter, now of Citi, as well as onservative publications like the Economist (criticizing Obama's "timid" efusal to allow bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages) and the majority of pinion pieces in the Financial Times, including the one by Martin Wolf below.
And, yes, I think Obama doing fireside chats on television, excoriating the atter day "malefactors of great wealth", appointing a Pecora-style commission o conduct a televised probe of the Wall Street practices which produced the risis, continuing to stump the country, and encouraging the tens of millions ho enthusiastically voted for him to bombard congress with emails, to petition, o demonstrate, to organize, and to engage in other forms of mass action in upport of jobs, housing, and healthcare - all of these activities, none of them lien to the American political tradition, would have put the country and the emocrats in a much better place than they are today.
It could also be said of most disgruntled Americans in 1932 that "their level f political consciousness is infantile, and their dissatisfaction with the tatus quo is dwarfed by their contempt for left-wing alternatives. The ourgeoisie is highly effective at divorcing the natural operations of the arket cycle from human agency operating in Washington?"
At certain critical junctures, leadership is important, and mass opinion can hift rapidly. In fact, since the election, and particularly during the past ear, we've seen such a dramatic shift in opinion - alas, in the wrong direction nd largely attributible in this case to (mis)leadership.
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
------------------------------ Message: 9 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:32:41 -0700 rom: "Chuck Grimes" <c123grimes at att.net> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Black Panther Coloring Book o: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> essage-ID: <87E9B17B7DA146BA86C75370D30CCD5B at fx0> ontent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original .The Panthers were a continuation, NOTa rejection, of the Civil Rights ovement at which Chuck sneers. That sneer would have outraged the Panthers. Other aspects of Chuck's post are more complicated, and I hope to return to hem in another post. Carrol ----------- I agree they were a continuation, and I am sorry, if it sounded like a neer. There was a strange kind of continum, or mood swing going on, and it till goes on with me.. I both reject and embrace violent means or reject nd embrace peaceful means to political and economic change. I more or less igured these were not necessarily in opposition. Rather we probably need oth to re-enforce each other. These have different tactical uses. For example, a peaceful sit-in does a iracle job of illustrating the true source of violence are the cops and the tate. On the other hand a scary violent riot reminds the cops and state, hat social order and its power is in the hands of the people. CG
----------------------------- Message: 10 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:54:45 -0400 rom: Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Enthusiasm o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <2536EAAF-6674-4254-80BF-89F05357795D at gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
n 2010-10-29, at 5:32 PM, c b wrote:
> CB: I think you should elaborate your "bully pulpit" theory of the
Presidency. It is a quaint expression, but I'm not sure the President,
particularly Obama, has any such ability to bully rightwing Democrats
into deserting their ruling class constituents. Clinton didn't.
My comments to Somebody elaborates.
> Overall, Obama's "timid" conduct was in the same vein as the way he
conducted his campaign , if you recall. He was so non-confrontational
it was amazing. He was vague in the kind of "change" he was promoting, but those who voted for im thought they were voting for a new New Deal, such as his campaign was subtly nvoking, and certainly not for a new Hoover or a continuation of the personnel nd policies of the Bush administration. Do you watch the "c'mon man" segment on unday NFL football, Charles?
I'm sure the O admin's calculation was why change
from their campaign approach that worked. And rationally, the Tea
Party should have been relegated to the fringe. But the media
completely reversed itself from the campaign and turned on Obama,
legitimized the Tea Party's pretense of not being Republicans, who
prevented Obama from being more left. This is evidence of a focused
ruling class decision to undermine what they had supported in the
campaign. Couldn't have a new Obama generation created. The media and ruling class didn't create the tea party. Widespread financial nsecurity and resentment about the prospect of higher taxes to support poor inorities did. The Republicans have happily welcomed these new foot soldiers, ith a view to taming, not encouraging, their wilder impulses.
With hindsight Obama may have acted differently. At this point, that
concrete situation is passed. Only political Peter Pans conclude that
this means don't support Obama or Democrats. I'm not a political Peter Pan. I've spelled out in great detail the different lass character of the Democrats and Republicans, and how this is reflected in heir respective platforms. I support trade unionists and their allies in their olitical struggles with the conservative parties to their right, even if the ore politically conscious workers are now congregated in the DP and social emocratic parties following the disappearance of the mass socialist parties to heir left. But I'm not impelled, as you seem to be, to defend the policies of heir leaders where these are in conflict with the interests amd aspirations of he masses.
^^^^^^^^
It's not only Obama's liberal and left-wing critics who have indicted
the administration for its Hoover-like timidity in the wake of the
biggest crisis since the Depression. A host of commentators from
across the political spectrum writing in both the financial and
mainstream media have offered up the same criticisms all year long.
It's plain wrong for both Obama and yourself to suggest the verdict
about to be delivered next week against his administration by the
American people is mostly owing to their obtuseness. That may be true
of the tea party milieu, but the larger part of the disgruntled
population has legitimate cause to believe bolder measures on jobs,
housing, healthcare, and financial regulation were necessary and
within reach, and to hold Obama responsible for falling short.
^^^^^^^
CB: Well, no I'm correct that it is "obtuse" and infantile for a
liberal or leftist to not vote for Obama because he tried to
compromise with the center just as he campaigned. Why wouldn't he
continue his winning campaign strategy ? That's my central point.
I think the "wise guys" around Obama (and including Obama) originally calculated
hey could safely take the liberals and independent Obama voters for granted
ollowing the campaign, and that they could now change course and go on to court
nd win over the "moderate" Republicans who were concerned by the growing
nfluence of the right in that party. They reasoned they would split the shaky
nd discredited Republicans and ensure a Democratic ascendency for generations.
n arguably reasonable calculation at the time from a partisan, electoral POV,
ut clearly a bad, bad, bad miscalculation in retrospect, and one that has
edounded to the detriment of the DP and the country.
> You and most of the list here
continue to underestimate the centrality of racism in the American
body/mind politic and in this sudden sea change from just two years
ago. It is a fundamental shortcoming of the political analysis here.
Can't speak for the rest of the list, but you won't find a single post of mine
here I haven't noted racism as one of the three main factors in the rise of the
PM (economic insecurity and the perception of US imperial decline being the two
thers). The thinly veiled racism was evident to my wife and I on our extended
oad trip to the US earlier this year, which included conversations with tea
artiers. You know me better than that, Charles.
> Overall, the more disturbing problem is that significant masses of the
American working class seem to have very fucked up political thinking.
"Below" , the "bottom" don't seem to be enough potential or conscious
to make progressive change . In fact there's a lot of rotten
consciousness. I can understand where you, Doug, Somebody, Woj, and other of my American riends whom I greatly respect are coming from. It's hard to be optimistic. But
still think y'all tend to extrapolate too much from the conservative political ulture of rural and suburban America and ignore the more liberal and osmopolitan cities and the demographic changes which are altering the political andscape.
------------------------------ Message: 11 ate: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:16:30 -0400 rom: Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> ubject: Re: [lbo-talk] Enthusiasm o: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org essage-ID: <5C6E2160-EAEA-4DD9-A93A-1C4402850F2E at gmail.com> ontent-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sorry, Woj. I suggest you go back and study the size and influence of the US rade unions and Socialist and Communist parties before and after the New Deal, s well as the pre-Keynesian economic orthodoxy prevailing in 1932. It was the hetoric and policies of the New Deal which gave a powerful stimulus to the ubsequen growth of the mass organizations and mass protest - not because FDR nd the DP were radicals, but because their foremost concern was to boost mass urchasing power and revive growth. That is what the system needs today in a relatively more modest way, which is hy it has so disappointed its followers and many centrist and even conservative ommentators. Obama had the option of building on the momentum generated by his ampaign and emulating the New Deal - albeit in a more modest way, as I've noted reviously, given the shallower crisis and disappearance of a militant labour ovement. Problem is some people on this list and on the US left, you included, eem to have lost perspective. On the one hand, you now suggest it was mpossible for Obama to have done more on jobs, healthcare, housing, and egulation, but have been among Obama's fiercest critics, on the other. Which is t?
On 2010-10-29, at 6:22 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> [WS:] Marv, your comparison is wrong. In 1932, the capital was on its
knees, with not many places left to go, and a threat of a Communist
revolution was very tangible and looming. And the expertocracy had a
clear alternative to the market orthodoxy.
Today, the capital got a black eye, but otherwise faces clear and
friendly skies. Not a cloud in sight. And no alternative either.
Wojtek
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2010-10-29, at 5:09 PM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
>
>> Marvin: That may be true of the tea party milieu, but the larger part of the
isgruntled population has legitimate cause to believe bolder measures on jobs,
ousing, healthcare, and financial regulation were necessary and within reach,
nd to hold Obama responsible for falling short.
>>
>>
>> Somebody: The bottom-line is that strike activity in the U.S. is
on-existent, campus radicalism has declined since the early days of the Iraq
ar, and instead of marches on Washington demanding jobs we have Comedy Central
an-club gatherings. But, somehow, Obama, a technocrat who ran on a centrist
latform, was supposed to single-handedly reawaken the class struggle. Frankly,
t's difficult to recall any leader who in such politically quiescent times, has
ver made so bold a move. I ask it seriously and without sarcasm: can you name
ny?
>>
>> The majority of Americans may be disgruntled, but their level of political
onsciousness is infantile, and their dissatisfaction with the status quo is
warfed by their contempt for left-wing alternatives. The bourgeoisie is highly
ffective at divorcing the natural operations of the market cycle from human
gency operating in Washington. It's only the latter which receives either the
re or the disappointment of the American people.
>
>
> I don't characterize the calls for bolder action on all these fronts
riginating within the bourgeoisie as calls for "class struggle." See, for
xample, Krugman, Reich, Stiglitz, Baker, and Galbraith and elements of the DP
ongressional caucus or, farther to the right, Volcker, Martin Feldstein, Simon
ohnson, formerly of the IMF, Willem Buiter, now of Citi, as well as
onservative publications like the Economist (criticizing Obama's "timid"
efusal to allow bankruptcy judges to write down mortgages) and the majority of
pinion pieces in the Financial Times, including the one by Martin Wolf below.
>
> And, yes, I think Obama doing fireside chats on television, excoriating the
atter day "malefactors of great wealth", appointing a Pecora-style commission
o conduct a televised probe of the Wall Street practices which produced the
risis, continuing to stump the country, and encouraging the tens of millions
ho enthusiastically voted for him to bombard congress with emails, to petition,
o demonstrate, to organize, and to engage in other forms of mass action in
upport of jobs, housing, and healthcare - all of these activities, none of them
lien to the American political tradition, would have put the country and the
emocrats in a much better place than they are today.
>
> It could also be said of most disgruntled Americans in 1932 that "their level
f political consciousness is infantile, and their dissatisfaction with the
tatus quo is dwarfed by their contempt for left-wing alternatives. The
ourgeoisie is highly effective at divorcing the natural operations of the
arket cycle from human agency operating in Washington?"
>
> At certain critical junctures, leadership is important, and mass opinion can
hift rapidly. In fact, since the election, and particularly during the past
ear, we've seen such a dramatic shift in opinion - alas, in the wrong direction
nd largely attributible in this case to (mis)leadership.
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
----------------------------- _______________________________________________ bo-talk mailing list bo-talk at lbo-talk.org ttp://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk End of lbo-talk Digest, Vol 1384, Issue 5 ****************************************