Charles writes: > Speaking of papering over real conflicts, > isn't > super-strong stimulus plan/temporarily > "nationalizing" banks papering > over the real class > conflict ?
--- On Sat, 2/14/09, Marvin Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > ============================== > Surprising stance from you, Charles. > > Did you ask your congressional rep to oppose a stimulus > plan, especially a > "super-strong one"? ^^^^^ CB: I didn't speak with her, but if I had I'd advise ok for her to propose strong stimulus , but adhere to Party discipline follow the Pres' lead after any discussion, even if his stimulus is not as strong. Your reply is a little misleading. Above, I'm not opposing super-strong stimulus plan/temporarily > "nationalizing" banks I'm criticizing some Pen-Lers posturing as lefter then O,because he is calling for broad mass unity (calling it papering over conflict) when Keynesienism papers over class conflict, too. ^^^ > > If there were a measure to nationalize a bank, would you > oppose it? ^^^^ CB: No, but I would advise against calling it "nationalization'. Call it "Americanization", or some other "blue" word. Name the new bank "United States Bank" or the like. Also, use Eminent Domain. Since there is payment, just compensation would be satisfied, and no Takings Clause problem . However, Pen-L and mass media progressive/Keynesian economists should make proposals in a friendly manner to Obama, as in a Popular Front. Not as the tone predominates on Pen-L. Also, the Pen-L/progressive econs should focus much more of their sharp rhetoric directly on Wall Street Masters of the Universe. Expose Wall Street, Name more names. As activists, economists should support mass Marchs on Wall Street and local Wall Streets. That's the main class struggle front, creditor vs debtor. ^^^^ I think > it would constitute progress to see an eventual debate open > up in the States > over whether a "temporarily" nationalized bank > should be privatized than to > not arrive at that point at all. ^^^^^^^ CB: It'd be fine. Maybe a Constitutional Amendment to require "Americanization" or some such of any bank or other company "too big to fail". As I say, I wasn't opposing these. I was criticizing Pen-L anti-O rhetoric. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
