[Marxism] obsessive opposition to Obama

[Walter Lippmann]

The relentless and obsessive opposition to Obama which we see on
the Internet by some on the ultraleft side of the political world
is indeed quite telling. None of the critics of Obama seem to be
investing any time or energy in opposition to Clinton or McCain.

The Obamaphobes have set themselves on a virtual jihad against 
what they have decided are the illusions of others. It's tiring
to be lectured about our alleged illusions by the self-appointed
guardians of our souls. These people, presumably, consider that
they, of course, are completely free of illusions while we are
suffering under the weight of our illusions. We are sick, we are
ill, according to these voices, while they are healthy and quite
lacking in illusions, they self-congratulatorily pat themselves
on the back.

There's nothing wrong at all with pointing out some or any of
the elements which revolutionary socialists and Marxists would
disagree with in the campaign of Barack Obama to become the
President of the United States of America. He doesn't propose
to overthrow capitalism, but to make it work better, as he is
entirely open in declaring. Has anyone claimed anything else?

The problem is in how we make such critical comments, in what
voice we use to communicate with the great mass of people who
continue to hold the idea, as most in the United States of
America do, that the way to being about social change in the
USA is to elect a better individual into the government.

So long as most people continue to believe that, it's not
possible to build a new, positive, progressive, left-wing,
socialist alternative to this capitalist society. Simply
grinding out the same tired rhetoric which has been spilled
against all previous Democrats, as if nothing of significance
is going on is reminiscent of religious faith rather than of
political participation.

Below are two different ways of criticizing the campaign of
Barack Obama. One is aimed at insulating its readers against
Obama, the other is aimed at educating its readers about the
limits imposed by class reality on any individual who would
seek the highest office in the United States of America.

We really need to learn how to communicate with the masses
of people in the United States from teachers like Mumia.


Walter Lippmann
Final full day in Nueva York

=============================================================

Obama speech on Blacks in U.S. prompts discussion (front page)
BY OLYMPIA NEWTON 

A March 18 speech on race relations by Barack Obama
helped convince a broader layer of the U.S. ruling class that he is
competent to be president for the next four years. It also opened a
discussion on racism in the United States in the big-business media,
on factory floors, and college campuses.

In the days following the talk, the Democratic Party leadership
quickened its process of lining up behind Obama. The Florida and
Michigan parties ruled out the possibility of redoing the primaries
in those states, a maneuver that could have helped rival Hillary
Clinton.
http://www.themilitant.com/2008/7214/721403.html 
===================================================================
Of Power & Empire 
[col. writ. 3/22/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

There is still over half a year until election day, and it is unclear
who will prevail.

For argument's sake, let us suppose Sen. Barack Obama (D. - IL)
becomes the history-maker of the hour.

What does that mean?

Well, it depends on whom you ask. For some Americans, it means a true
social transformation in the nature of the nation. For others
(especially those who consider themselves white supremacists) it
means a nightmare come to life.

For international observers, it will be seen as both change and
chance; change in how America is perceived; and a chance for a new
road in U.S. foreign policy.

Some will view it with amazement; others will greet it with relief.

But when I was asked about it recently, my reply was brief; "It means
a brown, new, pretty face for the empire. The present President is
seen as an idiot, and the face of American bellicosity. This guy has
brought so much chaos to bear, that they need a new face -- and Obama
brings a new face.

The interviewer, a foreign journalist, sounded somewhat shocked, but
there it is.

In manner and attitude, the U.S. empire brings to mind the Empire of
Rome.

In ancient Rome, elections were made by proclamation, and
acclamation. That means the would - be emperor would proclaim his
right to rule, and if the Senate (which theoretically represented the
People), and more importantly, the Army, acclaimed that right, the
candidate was hailed as true emperor.

That's the theory, at least, but in reality the army often named
emperors, and everybody else went along with their choice. They chose
men of varying abilities and characters. Some, like Maximin, were
brutes much like the military men who nominated them.

Others, like Nero and Caligula, were madmen, pure and simple.

As the great English historian, Edward Gibbon, in his classic The
History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London: Penguin
Classics, 200 [orig. 1776] wrote of the army as maker of emperors:

  The daring hopes of ambition were set loose from the salutary
  restraints of law and prejudice; and the meanest of mankind might,
  without folly, entertain a hope of being raised by valour and fortune
  to a rank in the army, in which a single crime would enable him to
  wrest the sceptre of the world from his feeble and unpopular master.
  After the murder of Alexander Severus, and the elevation of Maximin,
  no emperor could think himself safe upon the throne, and every
  barbarian peasant of the frontier might aspire to that august, but
  dangerous station. [p.91]

An empire is a lot like a machine, an it matters little who pushes
the button. Empires need figureheads, and figureheads are notoriously
interchangeable -- for the question is, can the machine do, what the
machine does?

In essence, can it work?

A president, no matter how powerful, does not the nation make.

They are, in many ways, the bully-in-chief, who can command not only
military power, but the power to decide which issues will be deemed
important.

But, as we've seen, there are limits to their power. They actually
don't control the economy, for one thing; for another, there are
limits to military power, as Iraq has shown, above all.

With the economy in free-fall, oil prices tripled since the war
started, steroids, medicines, and human waste in drinking water,
schools barely functional, the presidential race seems almost like
the latest distraction.

As for the machine of imperial politics--does it work-for you?

--(c) '09 maj

=============================================================
>From: Dbachmozart at aol.com

>Re: my "obsessive opposition to this particular bourgeois politician"  - as 
>if Obama is the only bourgeois politician that I and other comrades oppose!  On 
>a Marxism list, I wouldn't expect much time to be devoted to  debunking the 
>promises of a McCain or Clinton or even a Kucinich - I don't sense  any 
>illusions about their campaign rhetoric from comrades. 

=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Paraíso bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================