Brainwashed liberals finally begin to "voice concerns" about Obama

[Revy]

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292)
Link 2 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1208/Grumbling_on_The_Left.html)

Very interesting. I'm entertained to say the least. At least some of the so-called "left wing of the Democratic Party" now are beginning to understand what an Obama administration really means.

But I doubt most of the liberals will even care. As we see time and time again all they need is a (D) and they'll cheer anything.

[GPDP]

Which reminds me, I need to talk to my liberal Obamaniac friends and tell them "I told you so."

[Sankofa]

It's about damn time, and I hope this realization continues.

[Dean]

I despise Obama, but even I expected more. Shame.

[Martin Blank]

We expected him to be this bad. We said he'd be "Bush's Third Term", and he has yet to prove that wrong. So it's a big, steaming batch of "I told you so!" for all those who defended a vote for this corporatist.

[cop an Attitude]

hopefully people will lose faith in the 2 party system. If they come to find that this savior from bush is the same deal (maybe even another Middle Eastern war or a recession) people might come to realize that party doesn't matter, theres no real choice.

[Revy]

If you read some of the comments, there are people calling these modest criticisms "far left whining". They also note how the left correctly criticized Clinton for his corrupt imperialism as if it was some kind of crime against nature to think about principles rather than personalities. Remember when you couldn't criticize Bush or you were "unpatriotic"? I suppose it will be extrapolated in this manner: "C'mon you whining extreme leftist, look at the hope and change of Obama, he's our President now, be proud"?" The emphasis being, the left-leaning liberals will be coerced by the right-leaning and center liberal majority into being patriotic toward Obama, and unquestioning. This is the kind of personality cult you would never see under a McCain administration.

Juan Cole, a self-styled "anti-war" blogger and Obama supporter (contradiction), wonders if Obama refuses to criticize Israel or decides to attack Iran, that it will be because of Hillary, his new Secretary of State, whispering evil advice in his ear.

This is how far the personality cult goes, his faults must be on the very people he appointed, not himself.

[Revy]

We expected him to be this bad. We said he'd be "Bush's Third Term", and he has yet to prove that wrong. So it's a big, steaming batch of "I told you so!" for all those who defended a vote for this corporatist.

The Communist Party USA is praising his victory, but is going further. Sam Webb's address to their recent Convention calls on all their members to attend the inauguration for the purpose of celebrating his victory.



Our role, as I have tried to say, is to be part of the struggles going forward – beginning with attending the inauguration and encouraging others to do the same. It’s going to be a grand event and a public expression of support for Obama and a mass expression for change. link (http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/994/1/154/)

It's so ridiculous. I just hope a lot of people leave that party. I can not stand the CPUSA. He's also urging CPUSA members to be respectful in their "disagreements" with Obama and have their tone be "like a friend". :thumbdown: He also says that it wouldn't be "helpful" to characterize Obama as bourgeois or centrist, even if that's what he looks like (delusion).

[Dimentio]

If you read some of the comments, there are people calling these modest criticisms "far left whining". They also note how the left correctly criticized Clinton for his corrupt imperialism as if it was some kind of crime against nature to think about principles rather than personalities. Remember when you couldn't criticize Bush or you were "unpatriotic"? I suppose it will be extrapolated in this manner: "C'mon you whining extreme leftist, look at the hope and change of Obama, he's our President now, be proud"?" The emphasis being, the left-leaning liberals will be coerced by the right-leaning and center liberal majority into being patriotic toward Obama, and unquestioning. This is the kind of personality cult you would never see under a McCain administration.

Juan Cole, a self-styled "anti-war" blogger and Obama supporter (contradiction), wonders if Obama refuses to criticize Israel or decides to attack Iran, that it will be because of Hillary, his new Secretary of State, whispering evil advice in his ear.

This is how far the personality cult goes, his faults must be on the very people he appointed, not himself.

Yes, lets make revolution to overthrow the evil witch who have ensnared the king with lies, so the king may rule according to the good laws of the land! :D

[RadioRaheem84]

Here comes Bill Clinton's third term. Obama is already staffing his cabinet with New Democrat Clintonistas. The same people who initiated some of the most grotesque economic policies of our time; NAFTA, CAFTA, Welfare Reform, Deregulation of Wall Street, bankrupting of Mexico, etc, etc, etc.

I actually feel sorry for the millions of Americans that were actually hoping for change. But its true that people will remain optomistic and any critique of Obama is a critique of Jesus to the people that placed their hope in him. It's sickening.

[communard resolution]

The Communist Party USA is praising his victory, but is going further. Sam Webb's address to their recent Convention calls on all their members to attend the inauguration for the purpose of celebrating his victory.

Haha! I've been wondering why TomK is in the CPUSA ever since I joined revleft. Now it all begins to make sense.

[JohnnyC]

He's slightly better choice than McCaine, but still a capitalist fool.I don't think any serious revolutionary could think Obama is a socialist, the only group who will be dissapointed by his future politics are liberals and social-democrats.I think most of us already knew before the elections who Barack Obama represents.

[spice756]

That see the US economy get very bad and see what Obama is going do about it. I don't think Obama will save the US economy .The US economy is falling apart faster than the government can do any thing about it.

[KurtFF8]

Good to see indeed. Alternet.org (a progressive site) has been very critical of him for some time (although still supported him). I would say they're kind of the link between mainstream progressives and leftists. It is good to see that the buzz of his victory is starting to ware off and people can actually start looking at what to do next in terms of policy making.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Communist Party USA is praising his victory, but is going further. Sam Webb's address to their recent Convention calls on all their members to attend the inauguration for the purpose of celebrating his victory.

It's so ridiculous. I just hope a lot of people leave that party. I can not stand the CPUSA. He's also urging CPUSA members to be respectful in their "disagreements" with Obama and have their tone be "like a friend". :thumbdown: He also says that it wouldn't be "helpful" to characterize Obama as bourgeois or centrist, even if that's what he looks like (delusion).

Perhaps you SP-USA comrades can, as I said before, poach from the "left-wing" within the CP-USA?

[Sendo]

Which reminds me, I need to talk to my liberal Obamaniac friends and tell them "I told you so."

I have to say though, my feelings were right, I'd much rather be proven wrong on him. The hurt of seeing everything go to shit outweighs the glory of "I told you so". I recently was told that "You were right all along, it's all a charade" (in reference to imagined ideological differences between Obama,Clinton,McCain). But I didn't want to gloat, I just wish it wasn't so.

We can just give Obamaniac friends some links here and there to show them how shit he is. We don't need to rub into people's faces. The spell will wear off, people will remember Obama voted for Wall St bailouts, people will see that clean coal is a joke. It's like the Iraq war...the billions of dollars ad campaigns wear off and people come to their senses.

[Sendo]

That see the US economy get very bad and see what Obama is going do about it. I don't think Obama will save the US economy .The US economy is falling apart faster than the government can do any thing about it.

They're not trying to fix it, they just want to redistribute as much wealth upwards as they can while they still can.

[DancingLarry]

Which reminds me, I need to talk to my liberal Obamaniac friends and tell them "I told you so."

I've found the best way to tease them is to point out all the right-wing fruitbats that are swooning for Obama these days, the list includes Max Boot, Mona Charen and David Horowitz. I like to point out what a wonderful job of "reaching out across the aisle" and "bipartisan comity" Obama is doing.

Here's some links to taunt them with!

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/44551
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGU5YTJmOGNiOWQzNjZkN2Y3MDM5N2YyZTk5YTBhMGI=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=

[Shadowed Intent]

So you all would rather have had McCain?

[GPDP]

So you all would rather have had McCain?

http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/picard-facepalm.jpg

[fabiansocialist]

He's slightly better choice than McCaine ...

People have to stop thinking this way. This is the way the Democrats market themselves: "Vote for us; we're ever so slightly the lesser evil. And you don't want the nasty Republicans in, do you? We're less nasty than them." The Democrats consistently sail under a false flag: they are in fact no different to the Republicans, except they "feel your pain."

[fabiansocialist]

That see the US economy get very bad and see what Obama is going do about it. I don't think Obama will save the US economy .The US economy is falling apart faster than the government can do any thing about it.

Knowing Obama, it will be a case of "too little, too late." Some timid and diffident half-measures, mostly concocted by his Wall-Street-related advisors and appointees.

[ZeroNowhere]

Obama has already begun to bring about Change!

[#FF0000]

So you all would rather have had McCain?

No huge difference. Both mean bourgeois interests reign while the working class is stomped into the mud.

[Sendo]

So you all would rather have had McCain?

No, I'd rather have Saddam's ghost. By my anti-Iraq war and my anti-Obama stances this can be the only logical conclusion.

[Shadowed Intent]

Fair enough, it is unfortunate that there is never a good candidate. However what makes me extremely annoyed is that America is so damn important, it shouldn't have as much power as it does.

[apathy maybe]

Shows a problem with "democracy". Obama can now do whatever he wants for the next four years (well, from Jan 20).

In a real democracy he wouldn't even get to power, because he's changing his mind already.

[Revy]

Perhaps you SP-USA comrades can, as I said before, poach from the "left-wing" within the CP-USA?

If you mean, sap their members away from them, I'd very much like that. The radical genuinely revolutionary comrades.

We shouldn't underestimate the CPUSA's membership. A young person especially might look to that as their first party because what's makes more of a statement than being a member of the Communist Party? Little do they know they're in for brainwashing into liberal Democratic Party politics.

They actually tell their members to read Lenin's Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and interpret it to mean that their support for Obama is justified. It's a cult around Sam Webb now. If you go to the Young Communist League's website you'll be able to see they've made a "study guide" of the book available in which they argue supporting the Democrats is the right thing. I'm not kidding.

[Sankofa]

Fair enough, it is unfortunate that there is never a good candidate. However what makes me extremely annoyed is that America is so damn important, it shouldn't have as much power as it does.

America fought hard for the power it has. Enslaving, imperializing and making genocide all over the world can be really tiring you know.

[ZeroNowhere]

America fought hard for the power it has. Enslaving, imperializing and making genocide all over the world can be really tiring you know.
First off, America isn't a country, but that's just nitpicking.
Secondly, the US is a bunch of land, it don't kill nobody.

[Sankofa]

First off, America isn't a country, but that's just nitpicking.
Secondly, the US is a bunch of land, it don't kill nobody.

Is it necessary to pick about stupid shit in order to be a complete dick? I live here, I know very well that America isn't a country. Accept when people say "America" they mean the United States.

Secondly, I mean to express what the country has done. i.e. "Germany invaded Poland" Not the actual land got up and did it.

Can we go back on topic and cease the childish trolling? thanks.

[fabiansocialist]

Fair enough, it is unfortunate that there is never a good candidate.

There are some not-so-bad candidates outside the two-party duopoly. But in a rigged system, they get neither funds nor media coverage. Suppose, however, a miracle occurred and the bovine and moronic American voted for them. Further suppose no (major) electoral rigging occurred (I know, I know, it's getting more and more outlandish). Then the dark-horse winner would be assassinated pronto. That's why it's completely useless following this "danse macabre of flags, balloons, and bullshit" (John Pilger) every four years: nothing is going to change and we shouldn't be surprised when the son of a whore who wins promptly reneges on all the bullshit he spouted during the campaign.

[Victor]

If you mean, sap their members away from them, I'd very much like that. The radical genuinely revolutionary comrades.

We shouldn't underestimate the CPUSA's membership. A young person especially might look to that as their first party because what's makes more of a statement than being a member of the Communist Party? Little do they know they're in for brainwashing into liberal Democratic Party politics.

They actually tell their members to read Lenin's Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder and interpret it to mean that their support for Obama is justified. It's a cult around Sam Webb now. If you go to the Young Communist League's website you'll be able to see they've made a "study guide" of the book available in which they argue supporting the Democrats is the right thing. I'm not kidding.

I got asked once why I wasn't a member of the CPUSA and answered that I'm not that rightwing. Seriously though, the CP has a lot to be proud of in its history (and a lot on the negative side too). But supporting the Dems is absolute rubbish. We need a clean break from the twin parties of reaction in the USA. The Dems are part of the problem, any liberal who's dismayed should do a little reading of history and realize an institution like that doesn't change from the inside or the out.

For a revolutionary party in the US-that's change I can believe in!:D

[FreeFocus]

So you all would rather have had McCain?

Yes, actually. Obama's election kills most of the serious critique and discovery of American policy and its motivations that would have resulted from McCain's election. Now you have people abroad expressing renewed faith in the "American dream." This wouldn't have happened with McCain. Obama has restored American credibility, like it or not.

Furthermore, McCain would have weakened American imperialism. Obama strengthens it (Africom, multilateralism, etc).

I don't take seriously anyone or any party which endorses a capitalist, imperialist candidate or official.

[Pawn Power]

Yeah, I guess some are "expressing concerns" but it still seems that most liberals are still in love.

[hugsandmarxism]

McCain was a dangerous psychotic/neo-conservative, and Obama is a rank-and-file capitalist. I preferred the latter to the former.

and, uh... anyone know how to remove a bumpersticker, in a totally un-related subject? :blushing:

[Plagueround]

First off, America isn't a country, but that's just nitpicking.
Secondly, the US is a bunch of land, it don't kill nobody.

If anything, you would think instead of insisting that it's insulting to the rest of North and South America, people would reject the name America as it is a name given to the land by Europeans based on the name of one of their explorers. ;)

[Revy]

Sorry, but what do you really expect Americans to call themselves?
In other languages, like Spanish, words like estadounidense work nicely, but in English, such a word would not be so attractive. It would roughly translate to Unitedstatian. yeah......

[Shadowed Intent]

If anything, you would think instead of insisting that it's insulting to the rest of North and South America, people would reject the name America as it is a name given to the land by Europeans based on the name of one of their explorers. ;)

Ha, You already drive on the wrong side of cars and use the imperial system, you can at least keep the name we gave you. :tongue_smilie:

[Shadowed Intent]

Yes, actually. Obama's election kills most of the serious critique and discovery of American policy and its motivations that would have resulted from McCain's election. Now you have people abroad expressing renewed faith in the "American dream." This wouldn't have happened with McCain. Obama has restored American credibility, like it or not.

Furthermore, McCain would have weakened American imperialism. Obama strengthens it (Africom, multilateralism, etc).

I don't take seriously anyone or any party which endorses a capitalist, imperialist candidate or official.

Then again, it wouldn't have been McCain for long, and Palin scares me alot more.

[Post-Something]

First off, America isn't a country, but that's just nitpicking.
Secondly, the US is a bunch of land, it don't kill nobody.

This is the single worst post I have ever seen in my life.

[Del]

This is the single worst post I have ever seen in my life.

Agreed. Completely mindless.

[Guerrilla22]

Liberals were telling us how progressive Obama is and then he introduces members of his administration and it turns out he's simply recycling Clinton's administration, not to mention keeping Bush's Sec. of Defense. :rolleyes:

[fabiansocialist]

Liberals were telling us how progressive Obama is and then he introduces members of his administration and it turns out he's simply recycling Clinton's administration, not to mention keeping Bush's Sec. of Defense.

Let's be real for a moment. When people dreamt of Obama winning, who did they think he would staff the senior positions of the American imperium with? With people who have no experience with imperial management? It was clear he was going to recycle Clinton appointees. The "deep state" continues, and it needs seasoned imperial managers at its helm, those who know how the whole crooked system works, and have served in similar or slightly less senior roles before.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, I guess some are "expressing concerns" but it still seems that most liberals are still in love.


People should *not* be living their lives through politics (or business, for that matter) -- while the matters of both are always larger than oneself, and therefore of paramount importance, that fact means that the matters far overshadow one's own involvement in them.

Unless you happen to be in a high position of power under circumstances that happen to grant a fairly wide degree of latitude in decision-making it's the *politics* that will win out, not any particular person or personality.

Look at Illinois governor Blagojevich -- he became an impromptu, self-selected hero for the workers at the Republic factory by threatening to take state government business away from Bank of America.


See: "Illinois Threat to Bank of America Is Dangerous, Critics Say" (Bloomberg)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1305505&postcount=89
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agOFtufX.FXQ&refer=home


In doing so he became a martyr because he stepped outside the circumscribed role of what a bourgeois governorship is about, and got busted by the Feds in less than 24 hours. They used Big Brother methods to nail him on some run-of-the-mill bad-ass talk about the vacant Senate seat. The Feds used the guise of "anti-corruption" to take him out for supporting the Republic workers with actual clout / political capital.

The UE Local 1110's timing was perfect. It captured headlines for its militant workers in a post-election, post-coital moment far more easily than anyone probably imagined. But by sticking only to business matters -- unpaid compensation -- and *not* politicizing or spreading the militancy to other, like workplaces, it quickly got corralled. The co-optation that leftists anticipated has already happened, if in a semi-conscious manner, with the train of government intervention and media attention stumbling in and hogging both the spotlight and the storyline of the dispute.

So now we know where the parameters are in the new Obama regime. Love, in the realm of politics, will just put you in the express lane to crucifixion. The corporate, banking-based right wing continues to dominate the federal government, if only now more behind-the-scenes, with a new turkey frontman.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Guerrilla22]

Let's be real for a moment. When people dreamt of Obama winning, who did they think he would staff the senior positions of the American imperium with? With people who have no experience with imperial management? It was clear he was going to recycle Clinton appointees. The "deep state" continues, and it needs seasoned imperial managers at its helm, those who know how the whole crooked system works, and have served in similar or slightly less senior roles before.

Well, we hate to say we told you so... but we told you so.

[Bilan]

We expected him to be this bad. We said he'd be "Bush's Third Term", and he has yet to prove that wrong. So it's a big, steaming batch of "I told you so!" for all those who defended a vote for this corporatist.

I think that's a bit simplistic calling it Bush's third term. It kind of pushes the idea that it being Bush made any real impact. :tt2:

[Revy]

I think that, in the long run, it allows a lot of people who have been attracted to the Democratic Party to re-evaluate their position.

The Democrats obviously have had a lot to gain from being in the position of the opposition. Now they are the official status quo. And I think that if McCain were President, the imperialist, capitalist Democratic Party would have yet another attempt to rally people for "change".

Perhaps that is somehow a benefit of this Democrat victory. If Obama does this-or-that, there's no Bush to blame, no Republicans. The liberals will have to look at Dear Leader - and wonder if he is truly the right person to follow. I actually found a thread, in which a liberal called the bailout a "Republican bailout", obviously in a state of denial at the fact this was being promoted by Democrats all over. Such denial is not a river everlasting and they may find themselves up a creek without a paddle.

[Martin Blank]

I think that's a bit simplistic calling it Bush's third term. It kind of pushes the idea that it being Bush made any real impact. :tt2:

Well, "Capitalism's 56th Term" was too long for the space we had. :D

[RadioRaheem84]

Doesn't this all remind you of the first Clinton campaign? Bill Clinton was campaigning against Bush I on a platform of change and progressiveness. Then once in office he was taken hostage by the likes of Larry Summers and Robert Rubin. Then Clinton announces that the era of big government is over, enacts Welfare reform, NAFTA, CAFTA, and calls himself a "New Democrat".

And yet, the mainstream media loved Clinton and didn't criticize him at all on matters of economic, foreign and domestic policy. The media embraced the 'New Democrat' mold.

Is Obama reliving the Clinton nightmare? Is he embracing New Democrat policies even though he promised to bring "change"? It seems so considering he is staffing his cabinet with old Clinton lackeys.

[fabiansocialist]

Is Obama reliving the Clinton nightmare? Is he embracing New Democrat policies even though he promised to bring "change"? It seems so considering he is staffing his cabinet with old Clinton lackeys.

'Course he is. Do you even need to ask? Democrats are wolves in sheep clothing. Democrats sail under a false flag. I'm not blaming Obama: if Kerry had won in 2004, he'd have been exactly the same.

[Revy]

More to the point, if Gore had won in 2000, he'd be the same. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (in addition to having bombed Iraq numerous times and devastated it with sanctions) so the Iraq war was being set up, and so was the Afghanistan war, it all would have happened anyway. Except then Gore wouldn't be able to get the Nobel Peace Prize. That annoyed me so much since I hate Al Gore and his inflated ego and how he thinks of his boring self as the centerpiece of the movement against climate change. He was Vice President for 8 years yet he didn't do a damn thing against climate change. All there was, was talk. Same thing that's happening now.

[Invincible Summer]

From the article:

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Oh yeah.. because asking for real democracy is just so ridiculous :rolleyes:


Any time I read anything about Obama it usually angers me at how Americans call him and his supporters "far left" or "socialists" and therefore expresses their ignorance to real socialism. I don't want to be associated with these delusioned hacks!

[hugsandmarxism]

I would have prefferred Obama appoint Bill Ayers to his cabinet. -sigh- oh well~:laugh:

[Drace]

Wow. Are we right on everything?

[Tatarin]

Kinda goes in waves I guess. When Bush 01 promised a new world order and the massacre of Iraq, he got a major support. When Bush 02 announced the newer world order and the bombing of children-to-become-terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, support was with him also. Just like it was back in the Clinton days, and the Reagan "[d]evolution".

In one way, it shouldn't be so hard to figure. Same party - same finance - same things to be changed, but(!), another name. That makes all the difference!

"The more things change, the more they stay the same." - Snake Plissken (Escape from LA). I knew that sentence would come in somewhere in real life. :D

[progressive_lefty]

I don't blame any American lefties for being cynical, the Clinton administration is an example. I am finding it hard to see Obama being able to change the healthcare and medicine system i the states.

[Martin Blank]

More to the point, if Gore had won in 2000, he'd be the same.

Well, yes and no. I've had about eight years to think about this question, and in light of recent events in Canada (which I see as the beginning of a worldwide trend among the Great Power states), I think it's important to discuss it.

Yes, the policies of Clinton's administration laid the basis for what we've seen under Bush, and would have laid the basis for Gore if he had been allowed to ascend to the White House. But that's really not the point, since all bourgeois politicians do the bidding of their masters. The point here is not loyalty, but accountability.

Under even a nominal bourgeois democracy, there is a measure of accountability that exists between the office-holder and "the public" (i.e., the ruling class, the exploiting and oppressing classes more generally, petty-bourgeois "public opinion", etc.). For corporatism to work, for those sections of the capitalist class who back corporatism to achieve their goals, there is a need to eliminate the possibility of accountability -- even accountability to the class as a whole.

The rupture with bourgeois-democratic norms we saw in the U.S. in 2000 (and in Canada earlier this month) was designed to "perfect" the carrying out of their agenda by smoothing out the proverbial bumps in the road: Congressional oversight, media scrutiny, and so on. It was designed to remove accountability from the equation. The capitalists may initially have consensus on a course of action (e.g., invasion of Iraq, the "war on terror"), but to keep on course requires the substance of accountability -- even if it is only a perfunctory amount -- to be removed as an obstacle. Those sections of the exploiting and oppressing classes that may break with the corporatist consensus later will nevertheless be dragged kicking and screaming into the next adventure, with no recourse to prevent it.

Compared to Bush, who was more or less a "blank slate" and would do whatever was commanded of him, Gore was considered too susceptible to "public opinion" and accountability generally. Yes, he would have, in principle, done things no differently than Bush, but his potential for hesitation at certain key moments (passage of the USA-PATRIOT Act, for example) made him a liability. It's not that he wasn't loyal, or loyal enough; it's that Gore was not single-minded and that he refused to wear the blinders. He wasn't pliable enough. He wasn't a "blank slate", an empty vessel. In other words, he wasn't Bush.

The capitalists needed Bush at that moment in 2000 like the petty-bourgeois bureaucracy needed Stalin in the early 1920s, and for much the same reasons. The difference is that Bush never had the capacity to "outstrip" those who thrust him into power as Stalin did in some ways. Stalin was a "blank slate", but possessed cleverness and cunning. Bush possessed neither.

The left, from bourgeois liberals to petty-bourgeois radicals to self-described socialists and communists, has a bad habit of getting hung up on the forms while ignoring the underlying content -- of not seeing how the content can shift and transform while the old forms remain in place. It is naively believed that for one to change, the other must immediately follow. This is not the case. Ultimately, yes, the forms must match the content, but there can be a period of time when there is a contradiction between the two. We saw that in the USSR from 1919 to 1931. We're seeing it now in the U.S. (and Canada).

In terms of Obama, it's important to understand that he, like Bush, is a "blank slate" in terms of his politics. More to the point, he has that rare gift of being able to say something that can be interpreted a thousand different ways, depending on who is interpreting it. His erudition hides his political bankruptcy, and that is precisely what the capitalists want. In essence, he's Bush with a higher IQ. He is just as pliant and as much an empty vessel as Bush was in 2000, but he also possesses the ability to woo a crowd with his speeches and can better articulate the demands of his masters in a way that "public opinion" will accept it.

But there is also something else that makes Obama a needed tool for the capitalists. Unlike Bush, who displayed a marked indifference toward outside events, Obama shows a willingness to be "pro-active" in dealing with situations that could get "out of hand" for the exploiters and oppressors. His willingness to jump into the Republic occupation on the side of the workers in order to divert, channel and ultimately close down that struggle should serve as a warning to those of us who participate in and organize protests and events.

We should expect to see more of the same kind of attempts at co-optation of various movements (antiwar, civil liberties defense, economic defense, etc.) by Obama and his regime over the next four years. Let's not forget that Obama knows the left from his years working with community organizations in Chicago -- he knows the contours of the movement and, more importantly, its weaknesses and achilles heels. He will use that knowledge to do to the protest movements what he did to the Republic occupation.

We've been warned. The question is how many will listen.

[Module]

Whilst this was obviously expected, it is almost heartbreaking to think back to the hope so many Americans had for their new president. I think it may this initial surge of hope before the elections that may be able to continue to shield Obama from outright criticism for a long time to come.

So you all would rather have had McCain?No, we would rather have had the working class realise that their interests cannot be served by any government under the present system, and the recent and future developments will demonstrate in the scheme of things the comparatively meager political differences between the Democratic and Republican party who both serve and uphold the interests of the capitalist class.

[fabiansocialist]

The rupture with bourgeois-democratic norms we saw in the U.S. in 2000 (and in Canada earlier this month) was designed to "perfect" the carrying out of their agenda by smoothing out the proverbial bumps in the road: Congressional oversight, media scrutiny, and so on. It was designed to remove accountability from the equation. The capitalists may initially have consensus on a course of action (e.g., invasion of Iraq, the "war on terror"), but to keep on course requires the substance of accountability -- even if it is only a perfunctory amount -- to be removed as an obstacle. Those sections of the exploiting and oppressing classes that may break with the corporatist consensus later will nevertheless be dragged kicking and screaming into the next adventure, with no recourse to prevent it.

Compared to Bush, who was more or less a "blank slate" and would do whatever was commanded of him, Gore was considered too susceptible to "public opinion" and accountability generally. Yes, he would have, in principle, done things no differently than Bush, but his potential for hesitation at certain key moments (passage of the USA-PATRIOT Act, for example) made him a liability. It's not that he wasn't loyal, or loyal enough; it's that Gore was not single-minded and that he refused to wear the blinders. He wasn't pliable enough. He wasn't a "blank slate", an empty vessel. In other words, he wasn't Bush.

Your post is clever but you are over-intellectualising events that were to some extent contingent. Even with vote rigging, Bush might not have won. His winning also had to do with some popular support -- regardless of how it was engineered. Furthermore, the ruling class doesn't act as a monolithic whole and there have been ruling class divisions on the invasion of Iraq, for example, from day one. The same applies to economic policy, where certain interests have been favored at the expense of others. And with Obama, finance capital is going to be favored at the expense of industrial capital. Ruling class divisions and conflicts reflect themselves in the political process -- both in the formal system of elections and in behind-the-scenes lobbying, bribing, and buying of influence.

[synthesis]

Compared to Bush, who was more or less a "blank slate" and would do whatever was commanded of him, Gore was considered too susceptible to "public opinion" and accountability generally... It's not that he wasn't loyal, or loyal enough; it's that Gore was not single-minded and that he refused to wear the blinders. He wasn't pliable enough. He wasn't a "blank slate", an empty vessel. In other words, he wasn't Bush.


The difference is that Bush never had the capacity to "outstrip" those who thrust him into power as Stalin did in some ways. Stalin was a "blank slate", but possessed cleverness and cunning. Bush possessed neither.


Obama shows a willingness to be "pro-active" in dealing with situations that could get "out of hand" for the exploiters and oppressors. His willingness to jump into the Republic occupation on the side of the workers in order to divert, channel and ultimately close down that struggle should serve as a warning to those of us who participate in and organize protests and events.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but history is not determined by personality traits.

[Oneironaut]

We shouldn't underestimate the CPUSA's membership. A young person especially might look to that as their first party because what's makes more of a statement than being a member of the Communist Party? Little do they know they're in for brainwashing into liberal Democratic Party politics.


Funny that you mention that! I joined up with them when I was 16 (because well... they had the title Communist and I knew little better then). They sent me a bunch of shit in the mail and that was that. I hope they don't consider me a member anymore.

[communard resolution]

He is just as pliant and as much an empty vessel as Bush was in 2000, but he also possesses the ability to woo a crowd with his speeches and can better articulate the demands of his masters in a way that "public opinion" will accept it.

True. Imagine Bush rambling, "to overcome the economic crisis, we need to hunt down the poor, smoke them out of their caves, and confiscate whatever they've got left" - That wouldn't fly with the liberals, would it? Obama will find a more agreeable way to put it.

Over in the UK, Gordon Brown is already pioneering ways to do so: he describes the welfare reform that will feature compulsive lie detector tests (just in case you're cheating) as "compassionate towards benefit claimants" to "help them back to work".

[Martin Blank]

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but history is not determined by personality traits.

No, but the ruling class does look for certain traits that are conducive to implementing its agenda.

[Martin Blank]

Your post is clever but you are over-intellectualising events that were to some extent contingent.

Oh, dear! Miles is thinking again!


Even with vote rigging, Bush might not have won. His winning also had to do with some popular support -- regardless of how it was engineered.

First of all, Bush never "won" in either of his races for the chief executive position. In both 2000 and 2004, he ascended due to massive disenfranchisement. Second, the disenfranchisement and vote rigging was done as an insurance policy, to make sure the capitalists got the person they wanted. Third, yes, there was popular support. That is a given. But let's remember that, when compared to the entire adult population, it only amounted to 25-27 percent (at the most).


Furthermore, the ruling class doesn't act as a monolithic whole and there have been ruling class divisions on the invasion of Iraq, for example, from day one.

The divisions over invading Iraq were, generally speaking, tactical, not principled. This is shown by the fact that, in the "election" a year after the invasion, studies showed the virtually the entire capitalist class had shifted in support of Bush (contrary to the "public opinion" story about the "power" of Christianists and social reactionaries). If there had been a greater depth of division between the competing wings of the capitalist class, two things would have been visible: 1) a deeper debate over the merits of the Iraq war, similar to what was seen in the later years of Vietnam (and, more recently, in the 2008 campaign), and 2) a more visible antiwar posture from the other main capitalist party, the Democrats. Neither existed.


The same applies to economic policy, where certain interests have been favored at the expense of others. And with Obama, finance capital is going to be favored at the expense of industrial capital. Ruling class divisions and conflicts reflect themselves in the political process -- both in the formal system of elections and in behind-the-scenes lobbying, bribing, and buying of influence.

... Which, of course, is why Bush and Mr. Hanky the Treasury Poo pushed through the trillion-dollar bribe of Wall Street managers and professionals -- because they don't favor finance capital.

... Which, of course, is why Obama and the Democrats are pushing the "bailout" of the Big Three, and Bush and the Republicans are opposing it -- because "finance capital is going to be avored at the expense of industrial capital" under Obama, as opposed to what we've seen under Bush.

"Over-intellectualising events" might seem to you to be a problem, but under-intellectualizing events, and relying on superficial and worn-out theories, is worse.

[hugsandmarxism]

... Which, of course, is why Bush and Mr. Hanky the Treasury Poo pushed through the trillion-dollar bribe of Wall Street managers and professionals -- because they don't favor finance capital.

You win this argument by the above statement alone. I'm so stealing the "Mr. Hanky the Treasury Poo" line for some future post. :laugh:

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Not to rock the boat, well, I guess I am saying this to rock the boat, but you do realize that Obama is not the President yet?

Did the far-lefties really expect things to change the instant he was elected? This is America! Things don't move that fast!

Besides, he's not the President yet.

He's a Democrat, not a Communist. He was elected by a relatively small margin, he has not mandate to change everything, even if he wanted to.

He is the first black President-elect; he will be overly scrutinized in the media and in history. He's going to tred lightly ... until at least his (possible) second term.

Who knows what can happen? In the next several months, we could be in 1932 again ... breadlines and soup kitchens ... and Obama could have the "permission" to nationalize half the industries and businesses in the nation and implement of a planned economy! Highly unlikely, but I can't tell the future.

And may I also mention that he is not President yet. But I also want to mention that he is a Democrat and he was elected as such; he is not a Communist and was not elected as such.

TGOW

[not_of_this_world]

Obama is just another war president! His war will be Afghanistan. He probably does not even know that Afghanistan broke Russia's back. Does he have a bail out for financing that war? Do I have to mention that he wants to come to your house and remove all your guns also. Don't have to be an NRA member to know that, he hates citizens with guns. I got mine, you got yours? I hear that those military rifles are selling like hot cakes right now.

[not_of_this_world]

I damn sure would! With McCain and Palin this country would be going down a helluva lot faster, now the masses have this false hope of a savior for capitalism and that is worse!

[ckaihatsu]

Who knows what can happen? In the next several months, we could be in 1932 again ... breadlines and soup kitchens ... and Obama could have the "permission" to nationalize half the industries and businesses in the nation and implement of a planned economy! Highly unlikely, but I can't tell the future.


If the capitalist establishment was in better shape they'd never have put forward a person of color (minority) for such a position of authority.

Obama is a clinch-hitter, and he is following the situation left by Hoov-- I mean, Bush. Will he do an FDR-type New Deal, or will he lend strength to an explicitly anti-union, fascist-type conglomeration of capital?

While he's tall, his straddle can only stretch so wide, and the chasm is wider than ever -- we'll soon see which side he favors...!

[Sendo]

in other news, he appoints an ethanol advocate as the agriculture guy...and the Arcitc has passed the tipping point in positive feedback melting....yadda yadda....America's power and shit energy policy (of the last 50 years especially...check out "Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black) may have doomed us all.

I would feel really dumb if society crumbled and I wasted all my money right now paying off student loans instead of going out every night.

[Kibbutznik]

I suppose it's our duty as revolutionaries to be as loud and obnoxious as possible about Obama's deceit to the democratic party base. We've got a window to work with this disillusionment to build our movement.

[ckaihatsu]

Also:

I think Chicago must feel like the Seattle music scene did in the '90s -- usually major politics is reserved for the coasts, but we're seeing it play out on the equivalent of a sidestreet. Everyone looks to the Midwest when the country can't get its shit together, because there's nowhere else to run -- note the pivotal role Ohio played in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. This time around it's Chicago.... Speaking as a lifelong resident here, I feel like I'm getting sunburn from our being in the limelight for so long now...!

[Comrade_Scott]

[quote=Desrumeaux;1307613]Whilst this was obviously expected, it is almost heartbreaking to think back to the hope so many Americans had for their new president. I think it may this initial surge of hope before the elections that may be able to continue to shield Obama from outright criticism for a long time to come.

no it isn't sad i find it quite hilarious as we all bellowed that he was more of the same and no real change would come of it and they laughed and mocked us. well as the old saying says he who laughs last laughs best so HA HA HA you dumb shits, maybe next time they will read more and do more research. seriously now maybe now they wont be blinded by everyone who says change change change like a fucking hobo on the roadside and look to see that black or white, republican or dmocrat both parties will fuck you over.

ps on a personal note im glad he won because now black americans who expected a good run wil now feel what we in the caribbean and africa feel, the hurt and indignation of being fucked over not by the white man but by one of your own enjoy *****es enjoy. that is the end of my rant:mad:

[fabiansocialist]

Oh, dear! Miles is thinking again!



First of all, Bush never "won" in either of his races for the chief executive position. In both 2000 and 2004, he ascended due to massive disenfranchisement. Second, the disenfranchisement and vote rigging was done as an insurance policy, to make sure the capitalists got the person they wanted. Third, yes, there was popular support. That is a given. But let's remember that, when compared to the entire adult population, it only amounted to 25-27 percent (at the most).



The divisions over invading Iraq were, generally speaking, tactical, not principled. This is shown by the fact that, in the "election" a year after the invasion, studies showed the virtually the entire capitalist class had shifted in support of Bush (contrary to the "public opinion" story about the "power" of Christianists and social reactionaries). If there had been a greater depth of division between the competing wings of the capitalist class, two things would have been visible: 1) a deeper debate over the merits of the Iraq war, similar to what was seen in the later years of Vietnam (and, more recently, in the 2008 campaign), and 2) a more visible antiwar posture from the other main capitalist party, the Democrats. Neither existed.



... Which, of course, is why Bush and Mr. Hanky the Treasury Poo pushed through the trillion-dollar bribe of Wall Street managers and professionals -- because they don't favor finance capital.

... Which, of course, is why Obama and the Democrats are pushing the "bailout" of the Big Three, and Bush and the Republicans are opposing it -- because "finance capital is going to be avored at the expense of industrial capital" under Obama, as opposed to what we've seen under Bush.

"Over-intellectualising events" might seem to you to be a problem, but under-intellectualizing events, and relying on superficial and worn-out theories, is worse.

But all you are doing in this post appears to be elaborating my points so somehow I am "underintellectualising" events? What kind of argument is this? I never said, for example, that ruling class divisions were "principled": that would be daft. Of course they were based on expediency. So what are you saying that magically adds so much new intellectual depth?

[fabiansocialist]

Obama is a clinch-hitter, and he is following the situation left by Hoov-- I mean, Bush. Will he do an FDR-type New Deal, or will he lend strength to an explicitly anti-union, fascist-type conglomeration of capital?

The wherewithal isn't there. If I remember correctly, public finances weren't in a shambles when Hoover left: consequently there was more manoeuvring room for Roosevelt. Obama may talk about his public works program but I don't see how he will finance it.

[Martin Blank]

So what are you saying that magically adds so much new intellectual depth?

I never claimed anything "magical" about what I wrote. Never do. What I was pointing out was what we will have to deal with under Obama. That's all. What I was criticizing in your comments was the apparent lack of thinking ahead, and relying on long-used formulas that are not completely appropriate to the current situation.

[Floyce White]

I've been telling people for months that Obama is a boll weevil. Conservative to the core. He's not going to make an executive order to stop enforcing USA PATRIOT Act and USA PATRIOT Act II. He's not going to end the war. He's not going to take any action against the crime wave in finance/real estate. He's not going to change a thing. Sticking "change" under his name and face was a cynical trick his campaign advisors learned by watching the comedy "Yes Prime Minister."

Ever since Hurricane Katrina the Republicans were in trouble. The Democrats could have run almost anyone and won. For a black person to win this election is not meaningless. But a win by a career politician is far, far from the purported "victory" against racism that it could have been by running even a wannabe-activist type like Jesse Jackson.

The Grapes of Wrath: "Who knows what can happen? In the next several months, we could be in 1932 again ... breadlines and soup kitchens"

The world economy has been in depression since about 1989-90. The nadir was 1995.

I live in San Diego. In 1995, San Diego had homeless people sleeping in about every third doorway along El Cajon Boulevard, all the way out to Bostonia. (That's about 15 miles). It got a little better but not much.

The situation in Los Angeles and San Francisco is far worse.

It's easy to not look.

Look.

[ckaihatsu]

The wherewithal isn't there. If I remember correctly, public finances weren't in a shambles when Hoover left: consequently there was more manoeuvring room for Roosevelt. Obama may talk about his public works program but I don't see how he will finance it.


Agreed. I've started to call Obama the "babysitter" administration....

[fabiansocialist]

Agreed. I've started to call Obama the "babysitter" administration....

Engdahl has written a piece (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11401) at globalresearch and it sounds plausible to me. The trouble with all these monkeys -- Obama, Bernanke, and so on -- is that they want to keep the status quo as much in place as they can. But the ground rules are changing almost by the day. And these stooges of the ruling class can't think outside the box (in fact they can't think at all: they just go through the motions). The ruling class itself has got its head up its ass about what to to do -- no panacea, no simple fix, no postponing the day of judgment, which has been the game for the last three decades.

[Robespierre2.0]

. The trouble with all these monkeys -- Obama, Bernanke, and so on --

Dude, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to be racist, but watch your words. This could easily be interpreted the wrong way.

[FreeFocus]

Dude, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to be racist, but watch your words. This could easily be interpreted the wrong way.

As a person of color, I must say that it would truly be sad to completely restrict the use of descriptive words that are not exclusively racist simply because racists have used those words. Context is important and if people can't look at context, it's their own idiocy to be frank.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

anyone else think that they're a little late?

I hate the fact that people will just follow according to their party.

[fabiansocialist]

As a person of color, I must say that it would truly be sad to completely restrict the use of descriptive words that are not exclusively racist simply because racists have used those words. Context is important and if people can't look at context, it's their own idiocy to be frank.

I agree. This is the kind of red herring we don't need.