Another article from todays Observer. And it is worth pointing out, I think, that it has hailed from the pen of some professional hack or other who seems to possess a reasonable readable writing style, actually, it must be granted, albeit alongside what are, in one partial sense clearly correctly critical but, in overall essence--particularly the articles conclusion-- nothing more than wholly inadequate, part-philistine, part-cowardly *radical social democratic* views. Consequentially, I urge anyone reading this who chooses read *it* afterwards, to do so with the following couple of correct theoretical codification---or ones similarly apt-- in mind, both themselves excerpted the history of the revolutionary working-class movement so as to highlight the hopelessly flawed reformist thinking so apparent at the close of this same Observer article, here; namely, that, in the final analysis, vis-a-vis all bourgeois governmental institutions, be it congress in America, or the British Parliament in our own country (etc ).... The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. (Marx and Engels, during their..*Communist Manifesto* 1848) marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich — that is the democracy of capitalist society. (V.I Lenin, during his *State and Revolution*...August-September 1917) https://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ And, lastly, by the way, to any potential arguments to the effect that; Howabout in countries like Britain between 1945 and 1973, when some socially-progressive, and economically pro-working-class reforms were achieved by Labour governments?, the answer is that welcome though some of those reforms were, even they--in essence legislation enabling a better price for exploitation rather than an end to exploitation altogether---were only possible during that period (1945-1973), because those years really did represent a one-off golden period in history of capitalism where there was relatively little crisis and unemployment etc for over 25 years. Ever since then, however, Capitalism has reverted to its inescapable tendencies and forms of movement and stagnation which have always characterized it since it first entered its decaying phase in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. At any rate, that potential objection hopefully convincingly quashed, please feel free to read the article below from todays paper and compare it with the quotes and the context Ive tried to provide here in this social-media-form of preamble. Many thanks... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The recent passage by Congress of new legislation favourable to loosening controls on risky Wall Street trading is just the most recent example of the consolidation of plutocratic power in Washington. The new rules, written largely by Citibank lobbyists and embraced by the Obama administration, allow large banks to continue using depositors’ money for high-risk investments, the very pattern that helped create the 2008 financial crisis. This move was supported largely by the establishment in each party. Opposition came from two very different groups: the Tea Party Republicans, who largely represent the views of Main Street businesses, and a residue of old-line progressive social democrats, led by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Support for big finance is no surprise from Republicans, who are used to worshipping at the altar of Wall Street. But the suborning of “progressivism” to Wall Street has been a permanent feature of this administration. From the onset of his presidential run, Barack Obama had strong ties to Wall Street grandees. New York Times Wall Street maven Andrew Ross Sorkin noted in 2008 how Obama had “nailed down the hedge fund vote”. The ultra-rich so backed the president that, at his first inaugural, noted one sympathetic chronicler, the biggest problem for donors was finding parking space for their private jets. Since then, despite occasional flights of populist rhetoric, the president has kept close ties with top financial firms, including the well-connected Jamie Dimon, chairman of JP Morgan, often called Obama’s “favourite banker”. He appears to have been instrumental in getting Democrats to support the recent loosening of financial controls on big banks. These Wall Street connections have continued to play dividends for the president, in terms of contributions. The financiers benefited from Obama’s choice of financial managers, such as former treasury secretary Tim Geithner, widely known as a reliable ally of the financial sector. (He liked to explain his support by equating its importance to that of the technology and manufacturing industries.) To no sensible person’s surprise, Geithner, when he left the Treasury last winter, found his reward by joining a large private equity firm. (By way of completing the circle, Geithner’s successor, Jacob Lew, used to work for Citibank.) .....
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 00:26:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015