On the other hand, while the venture is not likely to succeed, it has much better chance than an effort build a political coalition to nationalize the banking system and establish governance institutions that will prevent the recapture of the banking system by the entrenched aristocracy of wealth. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Debt of dubious quality is the best kind; you should get some more in order to help build this movement.
This venture is a political coalition. All 'successful' political coalitions fail eventually, so why worry about that part? Even political coalitions such as the "entrenched aristocracy of wealth" fail. How many descendants of the English 'nobles' from the 19th century are part of the current "aristocracy"? How many Mings are part of the current Chinese ruling class? paul spencer
Actually, come down to it, I'm not entirely clear on whether I am supposed to excuse it for not bring an especially appealing political prospect, because of the policy appeal that is taken as read, or whether I am supposed to excuse it for not being an especially appealing policy position, because of the political appeal that is taken as read. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
And getting a change coalition together to nationalize a nation's financial institutions seems to me to be a really tall ask, far harder than a change coalition to pursue sustainable energy independence, and that is pretty damn hard in its own right.
So when told "All 'successful' political coalitions fail eventually, so why worry about that part?", I'm not clear on whether I am being told there is some compelling political coalition of interests that can be organized around nationalizing financial institutions that I am not seeing, which justifies the pursuit of a policy that on its merits would be a silver or bronze medalist, or whether I am being told there is some compelling policy benefit I am not seeing, that justifies working for such a political long shot. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Then the subject became effective political coalitions vs. useful policy. Apparently.
Now you seem to imply that unregulated financial institutions are no worse than regulated ones ("the US in the 1950's"). Plus, we can't enforce 'nationalization'. Also, 'change coalitions' are very difficult to assemble; and nationalizing financial institutions in the current context is a second- or third-tier objective.
Is that a fair synopsis? If not, please characterize the thread. If so, what are your first-tier objectives, and how do you propose to implement?
If you want my opinion, my objectives are always to create and maintain political coalitions that build socialism and democracy. Too vague? If you want to see specifically what I propose, go to my web-site www.spencerforpresident2008.com paul spencer
