From: Doug Henwood
c b wrote: > Point is that FDR and Lincoln were not so voluntarily courageous > as you might think. They were "made" to do it by strong social > movements from below ( not a small group of progressives). There is > no comparable social movement for progressives to represent in making > Obama do it. Lincoln was very pragmatic/opportunist. Lincoln and FDR were produced by a society that was rising in wealth and power. Obama is the product of a society that's rotting. Doug ^^^^^^^ CB; That's not the way you talked about the US about 5 or 6 years ago on this list. See PEN-L archives. Every time somebody around here would hint at some kind of economic crisis , you would check them with some data. Lets see. The dominant sector of the US mode of production, capitalist slavery, was rotting in Lincoln's era. Capitalism was in world crisis when FDR took office. According to Jim Devine, the Keynesianism that got the US out of the Great Depression was military spending on WW II; According to Eisenhower, it produced the military-industrial-complex; that's kind of rotting , too. Anyway, the aspect of US society that elected Obama is not its rotting aspect. The Tea Party was produced by the rot. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
