Perhaps though it is too early until Gingrich's successor is confirmed to see if the resignation marks any shift, and I expect US subscribers to have access to more of that information. What does "pragmatic conservatism" mean, under its necessarily vague label? What does it conceal?
Why are the Republicans lamenting that they got no message across about their superior ability to manage capitalism in the interests of the people? Why did the Stock Exchange rise on the mid-term elections, even though the Democrats had spent 100 million dollars less. What, of course subtly, is going on?
It is fine to show cordial contempt for bourgeois politicians, and the bourgeois political system, the point however is to change it. Steve's post
shares the contempt, but pithily points out the possible knock on effect on the whole political system.
Why has Clinton just issued such a generous statement towards his former adversary? Because he believes it? At a superficial level he probably tells himself he half believes it. Because he wants his enemies to fight? Yes. Because he is blind to the possible consequences on how he positions himself? Steve is not the only commentator who has noted that Gingrich was a good foil for Clinton.
I think, in view of the robust but IMO uncompelling attacks that have been made on my position on this list by Mark Jones and Louis Proyect for even discussing contradictions among the bourgeoisie, I need to put this challenge to Doug, who being the skillful email list host, may no doubt not reply in full at present.
Doug's book Wall Street (I understand from a spirited exchange with Bob Malecki - which cannot take place here, that it is already passed 20,000 sales - Congratulations!) ends:
"I realize that this prescription - something like market socialism - is at once spotty and grandiose. But the point is not to provide an elaborate blue print for a future society, in the style of John Roemer. Off-the-shelf utopias may be useful thought experiments, but they're of limited political use, except maybe as long-term inspiration. A future society has to emerge out of this one, on the basis of experimentation and struggle. I've outlined the fundamental principles of where I think we should go. Consider these closing pages fragments of a first draft for a project aiming to end the rule of money, whose tyranny is sometimes a little hard to see."
So what is of political use?
Certainly not tailing passively behind bourgeois politicians who are indeed all creeps. (Isn't that their job?) *But* is it not the case that successful creeps have to adapt to reflect a resultant of forces that shifts and moves?
Is it not the case that if anybody is engaged in the more progressive struggles that Doug sketches, their efforts will be co-opted and expressed partly through bourgeois politicians?
So what is the underlying movement here expressed through the mid-term election and the crisis in the Republican, not the Democratic Party? What opportunities does it give genuine left wingers? How does marxism, for those who are interested in marxism, illuminate it?
Chris Burford
London.
At 07:07 PM 11/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>With Newtie leaving the Blowfish to fend for themselves, Clinton really
might be in trouble now. It's the speaker who's usually saved him in the past.
>
>----------
>From: Doug Henwood
>Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 6:45 PM
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Gingrich falls
>
>Chris Burford wrote:
>
>> House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for
>> another term as speaker and has decided to
>> resign his suburban Atlanta seat in Congress,
>> sources tell CNN.
>>
>> Gingrich was delivering the news to his GOP
>> House colleagues in a conference call Friday
>> night, sources tell CNN
>>
>>
>>Is this true?
>>
>>What does it mean?
>
>It means he presided over an electoral disaster, and some creep will take
>his place.
>
>Doug
>
>
>
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:\gnitools\eudora\attach\RE Gingrich falls"