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, 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.
>In a message dated 3/6/2009 4:35:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> 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
>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
>and   displaced workers were bagging 10 - 20K and today, a few hundred bucks
>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
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

Reply via email to