[WS:] This is a blanket statement that can be either true or false when looking at different aspects of public policy, but I do not think this would be relevant to the argument I raised. My argument was, quote "plutocracy and fascism are the only political outcomes that the business class can produce on its own." Therefore, if the business class gets an upper hand this is what we get - either plutocracy if the business class interests are not seriously challenged by labor movement, or fascism if they are (cf. Chile and Weimar). I agree with you that so far things have been copasetic for the business class so that is why we have plutocracy, but if a proletarian takeover of power were a real possibility - as it was in Chile under Allende or in Weimar - the business class would dump the parliamentary democracy in no time and resort to fascism. In the US, this would be a bit more difficult due to the federal structure of the state, but not impossible.
I also read that you agree that it is the balance of class power not personality of politicians that decide a course of political action, and since that class balance is now currently heavily tilted in favor of the business class - here and abroad - we get neoliberal policies regardless of who gets elected. I can certainly agree with this. We can of course debate what caused that shift in class power balance, but that is an altogether different subject.
My post was directed mainly on Obama and Democrat haters on this list - the problem is not Obama but the power of business class. End of story. Obama does what anyone would do in his position - so why kvetching about him personally? In fact I love what he does to the gutter right, gun lovers, and tea party trolls. Not that it matters politically, but it is the pure joy of schadenfreude to see this vermin pissed of.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."