>John Kerry understands surplus-value better than American Marxists, except that he
doesn't have a name for it.<

perhaps because he lives off of surplus-value? (don't you mean _some_ American 
Marxists?)

or is it because populist rhetoric sometimes pays in politics? 

------------------------
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jurriaan Bendien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 9:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] patricians
> 
> 
> In understanding the reasons for selecting John Kerry I think 
> you have to
> look in the first instance at his performance record and 
> biography and the
> personal values he expresses. Everybody knows that the Bush 
> administration
> has been a disaster for American society and the image of the 
> USA in the
> world, there's few things they can do well, and they hope 
> that Kerry would
> attract the kinds of people that can create a better place.
> 
> The Bush group is strongly linked to oil (and energy) 
> profits, and of all US
> corporations, the oil corporations are the most profitable 
> and most dynamic
> in recent years. Kerry is the richest member of Congress, and 
> worth around
> $550 million. His wife, Teresa Heinz is the the widow of 
> Republican Senator
> and ketchup tycoon John Heinz ("Beans means Heinz"). The 
> "patrician" bit is
> mainly an elegant Georgetown house, and the use of a private jet.
> 
> John Kerry said in an interview with Tim Russert on 11 
> January 2004 that
> "...every statistic that you just read off, Tim, works 
> wonderfully if you're
> looking at a Republican recovery. You know, corporate profits 
> are up 46
> percent, but they're up by consolidation. They're up by increases in
> productivity.  They're not up because Americans are going 
> back to work, and
> they're not up because Americans are earning more money." John Kerry
> understands surplus-value better than American Marxists, 
> except that he
> doesn't have a name for it.
> 
> Jurriaan
> 

Reply via email to