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
