Re: [Marxism] New York Times coverage of Chicago factory occupation

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Lause wrote:
> 
> Also, I frankly expected Obama to be much more embedded in the
> conservatism of that body of appointees and be more cautious about
> this sort of thing until we had won some victories.

Both the building occupation and Obama's statement of support focus
pretty sharply on the _injustice_ of the workers not being paid for the
work they have done. There is _no_ claim, explicit or implicit, of their
_right_ to their jobs, either in their rhetoric or in Obama's statement. 

Given those parameters, it is not I think surprising that Obama has
given his support, worded both as to point to the need for stimulus
_and_ to limit action of a broader scope by workers.

Carrol

P.S. I think the whole damn debate over Obama has been pretty silly.
He's a capitalist politician. Anyone who occupies the White House is a
capitalist politician. What is all the excitement about. Focusing on him
personally lets capitalism off the hook.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu