Now Obama chooses Sanjay Gupta?

[RadioRaheem84]

Sanjay Gupta was one of the major critics of Michael Moore's acclaimed film, Sicko. He has even been an outspoken critic of socialized medicine and universal healthcare. The only thing I have ever heard him say about universal healthcare is that he likes some aspects of the Canadian system. Other than that he has even associated himself with a conservative Republican group in order to bash Moore's statistics which were later on determined to be accurate by CNN themselves.

Why is Obama doing this? It's one thing to appoint some people he disagrees with but he is filling his cabinet with centre-right people. Now with the appointment of Sanjay Gupta, we can kiss the hope of universal healthcare goodbye in this nation.

How much more do we have to take from this guy? And he isn't even in office yet. The only people I know of that are still prasing this guy are centrist bougie yuppies!

[Kassad]

He's doing this because the ruling class likes the way things are going for them. The current economic crisis will potentially put millions out of work, but the bailouts that President-elect Obama is supporting lines the pockets of the corporate fat cats. The working class suffers while the rich get richer.

I seriously doubt we will see a day in the near future where the bourgeoisie, especially those involved in the insurance industry, let socialized medicine take effect. As long as they can continue to keep the populace mezmerized by absurd ideologies, such as free-market solutions and privatization, they will milk the system for as much as it's worth. They will only make drastic change is they require it to remain in power.

Obama is doing this because he is appointing more bourgeoisie puppets who will work alongside the ruling class to continue their oppression and half-reformism. Did you really expect anything different?

[SocialRealist]

Sanjay is best known for being a CNN corespondent. Barack Obama is doing this due to the fact this is honestly what he believes in, he does not believe in helping the common-man, Barack believes in helping and doing what is best for the capitalist class, which for us the working men and women of the America means a continuation of profit before people.

[JimmyJazz]

I seriously doubt we will see a day in the near future where the bourgeoisie, especially those involved in the insurance industry, let socialized medicine take effect.

If it ever does, they (the threatened section of the capitalist class) will sabotage it. They will make sure it is perpetually underfunded, so that you have to wait weeks or months for treatment, and just generally ensure that it is a disaster. Then they will have the "I told you so" factor on their side, and build up the political capital to destroy all gains and reinstitute privativized healthcare.

This is the weakness of reformism. While the capitalist class exists as a class, it will defend its interests, and it always has the means to do so.

[RadioRaheem84]

Has anyone else noticed that the government during the days of FDR and throughout the 50's up until the late 70s was a powerful machine? While it didn't always serve the interests of the people it was an amazing effective machine building up the American empire. We defeated Hitler and Japan in less time than it took to build a bridge in post-war Iraq! The Federal Highway system (while proven ultimately useless) was an amazing government experiment. We landed a man on the moon, started social security, enacted child labor laws, strengthened unions and kept crime to a bare minimum.

This what the government used to do and now it seems like the government can't manage to run a decent thing. It seems like this idea that the government cannot fix problems is the work of sabotage within the government by radical hardliners that purposely underfund projects and programs in order to sell them off to private hands. Then they tout the line that government cannot solve problems and makes them worse.

People get the impression that the government cannot run things right because people AREN'T running things right.

[Angry Young Man]

You sure you're a comrade, mate? It's just we don't oftentimes speak reverently of FDR, and fewer times of 'empire'.

Stay here, and get learning: capitalism, run in any manner be it libertarian, reformist, or anything, will never serve the interests of the working class.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am not trying to say that the FDR imposed New Deal or the Keynesian age of America worked in favor of the working class but it did relieve some of the aches of the Depression. It was reformist but it showed what the government could do if it enacted it's full muscle. Imagine what this government could do if it was truly under a progressive-leftist administration.
It just seems like hardliners of the right and center ("New Democrats") actively undermine the government in order to bolster the private sector.

BTW, I am not a Communist but a Democratic Socialist.

[Angry Young Man]

Rule #1 - A government can't carry out socialist policy without overthrowing all elements of capitalism. I'm guessing you're American, so to illustrate, I'll talk about the United Kingdom, though the same is true of most Western European countries.

In the UK, Labour - the social democrat party - formed its first government in 1924, though it had been the second party for some time sooner. This had the Tories - the political representation of the bourgeoisie - shitting themselves that they would implement Socialism. In the House of Lords, they had a permanent bargaining chip against the government. This meant that they could not implement their social policy fully. The rest of their history is much the same. It has always been at least the second party in Parliament, and has since dropped the clause in their constitution stating that they would, at whatever speed, build socialism. All of their post-war leaders have been to the right, with the possible exception of Michael Foot.
This is the result of social democracy. The worst thing is when real socialists take these parties as socialist. I have to tell you, when I heard Bevan's speech about the Tory party, there was a tear.
On the party's own part, it has always given the higher positions mostly to the right of the party

[ZeroNowhere]

Has anyone else noticed that the government during the days of FDR and throughout the 50's up until the late 70s was a powerful machine? While it didn't always serve the interests of the people it was an amazing effective machine building up the American empire. We defeated Hitler and Japan in less time than it took to build a bridge in post-war Iraq! The Federal Highway system (while proven ultimately useless) was an amazing government experiment. We landed a man on the moon, started social security, enacted child labor laws, strengthened unions and kept crime to a bare minimum.

This what the government used to do and now it seems like the government can't manage to run a decent thing. It seems like this idea that the government cannot fix problems is the work of sabotage within the government by radical hardliners that purposely underfund projects and programs in order to sell them off to private hands. Then they tout the line that government cannot solve problems and makes them worse.

People get the impression that the government cannot run things right because people AREN'T running things right.
No, see, there was a socialist movement building at that time. Crud, a reformist paper even boasted about how 'Progressives' fight socialism better than conservatives. Theodore Roosevelt was quite clear that he was being 'progressive' in order to maintain capitalism, while FDR quoted Macaulay, "reform if you would preserve." He also bragged, during his re-election campaign, "It was this administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin by these same leaders who are now trying to scare you."
"It does not require any profound insight to realize that the nation's hopes for a sane and decent society do not lie with the American plutocracy; nor with the president and his administration. Nor do they rest with men and women "of good will," or of "liberal persuasion," no matter how sincere or commendable such sentiments may be. Those hopes lie with the American working class. They lie in the latent political and industrial might of that working class, the only might that can neutralize and defeat the plutocracy and the liberals and provide the basis for a new democratic and affluent society." (Nathan Karp)
Once Keynesianism got its ass kicked, capitalists spearheaded the neoliberal movement (through propaganda and funding 'think'-tanks), that meant the end of social programs and such. This was regardless of which Party got in.
Also, there's no government like no government. :)


Imagine what this government could do if it was truly under a progressive-leftist administration.
Cause capital flight, I suppose.
I would say, "Adjourn, sine die," but I get the feeling you're talking about reformists rather than socialists.


BTW, I am not a Communist but a Democratic Socialist.
Literally, that would make you a communist. Unfortunately, it seems more likely that you're a silly reformist, in which case it would be nicer if you just called yourself such.


This is the result of social democracy.
As far as I know, the term comes from the socialist movement. However, I've never quite got what the hell it has to do with reformism. 'Social democracy'? Why the hell is 'democracy' in there? It's irrelevant, and innacurate.

[hugsandmarxism]

Well, some say Obama's choosing right leaning people so he can move left more freely, but that is likely bullshit. Oh well... as one who resides in the USA, I have to say, I prefer this to the McCain-Palin administration picking all of Sarah's inbred drinking buddies to run government. That's why I voted for the prick anyhow... despite the fact that he's a capitalist marionette. Ugh... even though I was voting for the lesser of two evils, which is the best thing you can do in my country's electoral politics, this still makes me unhappy :(. Oh well, since consent is interpreted both ways in our system, and you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, it doesn't hurt to cast a ballot towards the capitalist pawn you hate less than the rest, so long as you keep your revolutionary head about you...