Doug wrote: > No, not blah, blah. Most of the time I'd agree with what Lou said. I'm > not surprised at all by BHO's foreign policy appointments. When it > comes to imperialism, the Dems can be just as hard a cop as the Reps, > actually. But I don't get the stimulus politics. He could hang tough > and even peel away a couple of Rep votes in the Senate (the Maine duo > and/or Specter). The compromise makes no political or economic sense > to me.
Here's how the compromise makes *perfect* sense: 1. The DP is not anti-imperialist. 2. The U.S. (anti-imperialist) left, inside and outside of the DP, is weak. Does that mean that where Obama and DP wind up has already been determined? How does it help us to view the DP as a political monolith? How does it help us to ignore the struggle inside the DP, of which Krugman's opinions are an expression? To say that the DP is a bourgeois political formation is an abstraction. The truth -- as grandpa Hegel wrote -- is concrete. The DP is a bourgeois political formation with contradictory tendencies inside. It's in flux. Just in the last year, the DP was the vehicle for the election of a Black candidate to the presidency. There are several interlocking crises erupting, in the economy, in international relations, etc. This makes things even more fluid. Obama's views must be in flux as well. Just by looking at the surface, the guy is sending a bunch of contradictory signals. But Louis Proyect already knows everything there is to know about this. Give me a break! Blah blah! Oh, and also blah! _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
