Charles lost his mind a long time ago. But he has gotten really bad in recent months. After you have partaken too much of what the CP is serving, you get the itis.
A lot of words are wasted wrangling in sectarian environments. Perhaps some people feel the need to prove they're not being fooled, by denouncing bourgeois politicians. Others, proving they are not sectarian, act as if self-deception and confusion is the way to act practically and make necessary compromises. But once one knows a bourgeois politician is a bourgeois politician, one can move on to delineate clearly and precisely the situation to be dealt with. At 05:31 PM 3/6/2009, waistli...@aol.com wrote: >The issue is always "what is wrong" rather than "who is wrong." > >Labeling people "haters" . . . "left haters," who do not support Obama the >person and the Obama presidency in a country where the working class >is so and >"devisive and sectarian" that the majority refuse to vote at all, is "what is > wrong." I see no reason what so ever to praise (my exact word) > Obama or his >administration for extending unemployment benefits to the exact same degree >and the exact same way done under the Bush W. administration. > >The issue I wrote about was not an addition $100 a month, but deals with a >completely different realm: a measure of what took place under the Bush W. >administration, the precedence of the past and the art of the >possible. It is >imperative that communist always stay one step ahead along the path >the working >class must travel as its spontaneous movement and its self discovery of >itself as a class. The LENS to use in traveling this path is that >if the lowest >section of the workers as their interest intersect and find >expression in the >political sphere. > >What is wrong is praising the Obama administration and the one hand; and >condemnation of comrades - "let haters," whose opinion might disagree with >someone's else opinion. > >To begin with it is impossible to "save" capital without saving those >workers connected to it as the unity of productive forces and >production relations. >To preserve this unity it is necessary to increase demand and I shall never >approach or suggest negotiating from a standpoint that my enemies are doing >me or mine a favor, . . with a concession, as such. . >. >The real issue is over concentrating on "private sector jobs" - as >government spending or socially necessary means of life. The pouring >of trillions of >dollars down the rabbit hole of modern speculative finance is designed to >starve the workers of these needed funds. > >The issue is not "me" or "who I am," rather the issue is how are comrades to >frame the current struggle of the working class. Towards this end a doctrine >is being put forth as the strategy and tactics of using "class intersection" >as a measure of the complex fight unfolding. This is what is missing in >assessments of the Obama administration and the existing >correlations of forces >in the Senate. > >Further comrades cannot be sectarian for fighting to establish a communist >polarity in the political sphere. Which side are you on is not a >conception of >Democrats or Republicans but workers and capitalist. > >WL. > > > >In a message dated 3/6/2009 4:35:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >cdb1...@prodigy.net writes: > >This penning away about how much Obama is doing for the working class for >extending unemployment benefits is blind to all those workers who cannot >receive >such benefits. Further, we have many precedents in the past concerning >extension of unemployment benefits, even under the Bush W. regime. In fact >in the >1970's under the old Trade Readjustment Act of 1974 (or was it 1976) laid >off >and displaced workers were bagging 10 - 20K and today, a few hundred bucks >a >week is pathetic and unworthy of praise. > >^^^^^ > >CB: It's not the only Obama action in favor of the working class. Because >some can't receive benefits doesn't mean it's not worth noting those who do >benefit. Your expression here is devisive and sectarian. The idea >is to promote >solidarity among people, not encourage one group begrudge benefits to >another segment. And the amounts are small, but $100 more a month >can pay a monthly >minimum health insurance or car insurance bill for six to ten months. six to >9 months of extended benefits amounts to thousans of dollars. A real >champion of the poorest sectors of the working class wouldn't sneeze >at these >amounts of money. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
