I didn't say anything about market socialism. To me that is about
workers' decentralized
control-cum-ownership at the workplace. Not relevant at the moment.
There is no basis at this point in time for conflating Obama & Co. with
the classic 'Chicago' slur.
Nobody can tar BHO with my name since I have zero connection to the
campaign. Oddly
enough, the misinterpretation of the Furman hire helps to immunize BHO
against red-baiting.
I agree a big Democratic victory means a big centrist ruling party.
What remains to be seen is
how leadership is exercised within such a formation, and where it goes.
Wall to wall Democrats
in power provides a lot of space for initiative that popular
mobilization can provoke. You can
see some of it even now. Congress with veto-proof majorities is in the
process of voting a nice chunk
of change for passenger rail.
ravi wrote:
On Jun 15, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
Stabilization is hard work, but via regulation does not seem
completely intractable.
Secondly, social insurance can reduce the adverse impacts on people.
Market socialism? So do you believe the above is possible? If so, then
why do we need an alternative? I just read about malnutrition among
children in parts of India going *up* -- I'll take the above (as a
permanent solution) if I can get it!
Regarding "Chicago," Rubin/Hamilton/Furman/Goolsbee are focused on this,
not necessarily with the best remedies, but focused nevertheless. The
real Chicago types are devoted to arguing why less rather than more
should be done. That is what is so annoying about Klein. Instead of
preparing the ground for people to consider remedies, she is elevating
this "free market" chimera that is being eased out of power, as we speak.
That last sentence, I believe Max, is Klein's point -- here we are at a
point of disillusionment with the "free market chimera" and the man that
the optimistic progressive upper classes are putting their trust in, is
hiring people who seem to be traditionalists. I think JD offered via a
Titanic analogy the difference between these guys and the Friedman
gang... from the perspective of what is possible at this moment in time,
is that difference significant? I mean, would O'Reilly and the lesser
goons be able to rally the masses against Obama based on tarring him
with the names of Dean Baker and Max Sawicky? ;-)
The Rubin school might acknowledge the issue and the need for a
solution, but their effect (if any) will be one of moderating even
mildly radical approaches, since Klein seems to believe (from my
reading) that they share (and choose to be limited by -- as seen by the
"Kum Ba Ya" comment) the same framework. I see it as similar to the
misbegotten Dean/netroots "50 state" strategy which expends great energy
and hope in electing anti-choice (and in other ways regressive)
democrats in Southern states merely to achieve a numerical majority. The
presence (and often the voting or pre-vote influence) of these fellows
results in a centrist party. At a time when public discontent with the
GOP is high enough that (I claim) the Dems have as good a chance of
"whistling past Dixie" and electing [more] true liberals in other spots
and gain the same majority but with a greater ability to act.
--ravi
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1503 - Release Date: 6/14/2008 6:02 PM
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
