[lbo-talk] obama-puts-wall-streets-worst-nightmare-in-charge-of-sec/

[Marv Gandall]

We're in substantial agreement on what you've written below. However, I do think the administration had more latitude, within the framework of the system, to move more boldly after Obama's decisive victory in 2008, with the Republicans and Wall Street being widely held responsible for the financial crisis. The system would actually have benefited from stimulus aimed more directly at job creation, the nationalization and restructuring of big zombie banks, the write-off of principal to clear the housing market, public health insurance, etc. Instead, the clever strategists at the White House facilitated a political recovery by the right and inhibited a more robust economic recovery in an effort to win over "moderate" Republicans and create a permanent DP majority. The 2010 mid-term election which gave the Republicans control of the House was the disenchanted public's reaction to Obama's tepid reformism and failure to make much progress in resolving the jobs, housing, and health care crises. In other words, even from a liberal perspective and taking into account the lack of working class pressure in the streets and workplaces, Obama can be, and has been, properly criticized for not even attempting to deliver a new New Deal in the brief window following the election when the political relationship of forces gave him that opportunity. 

On 2013-01-25, at 11:15 AM, Wojtek S wrote:


> Marv: "There are no significant differences between the liberal
> parties in the US and abroad"
> 
> [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."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk