Gordon wrote:
>> I don't know about the Socialist Party, but the material
>> I've seen from the Greens doesn't challenge the basic
>> assumptions of capitalism, liberalism and social democracy,
>> so in effect the people they are going to relate to among
>> Blacks and women (as political categories) are precisely the
>> Talented Tenth, because that's what social democracy is all
>> about -- the bourgeoisie with a human face, you might say,
>> achieved by replicating bourgeois relations and ideology
>> among the lower orders and thus incorporating them into the
>> system.
Yoshie Furuhashi:
> At this point in history, we don't have to worry about the American
> Greens becoming part of social democracy, for the USA does not, and
> _will never_, have social democracy. Only late industrializers &
> second-rate imperialists became social democratic; imperial hegemons
> (the UK, and then the USA) never became really social democratic.
> Moreover, all countries that are still social democratic now
> (Germany, Sweden, etc.) began to become so much, much earlier in
> history (during the periods of the Enlightened Despots and/or of
> alliance of radical peasant and working-class parties); the working
> class & petty producers in those countries are trying to hang onto &
> defend what's left of earlier gains, instead of making social
> democratic advance. American radicals had several chances to lay the
> foundations for social democracy -- Black Reconstruction, Populism, &
> then the New Deal -- but they lost each time, due to American racism.
>
> Besides, now that we have no serious Communist challenge to
> capitalism, there is no reason why the ruling class in rich nations
> should concede to social democratic compromises.
>
> A good number of Greens are technocratic as you say, resembling the
> Fabians, but rest assured that wannabe Green technocrats will not be
> able to deliver social democracy. Social democracy is dead, and not
> just here. Recall what became of the German Greens: the Green
> scissors of neoliberalism & the humane face of imperialism. The job
> of radicals in/near the Green movements in America is to stop the
> American Greens from following the footsteps of their German
> counterparts & to help them gain the guts to de-legitimate the
> Democratic Party & its supporters -- including the Black & Feminist
> Talented Tenth -- instead of promoting Nader-Traders.
I was using the term "social democrat" rather loosely. I wanted to include, with Swedes and the Germans, those fans of soc-dem lite or the Welfare State who are often called liberals in the U.S. The common theme is that while Capital shall unquestionably rule, the bourgeoisie will try to be nice to the lower orders and even make commitments to niceness. Soft cop, in short. I believe this is a paradoxical wish since the class structure implied by Capital mandates some kind of damage at the bottom, or it wouldn't be a class structure. However, liberalism likes to chew paradoxes as it walks to the bank.
I believe that most of the active members of the Green Party can be pretty well identified as "social democrats" if my loose definition is used. As such they, like the Democrats (and the Republicans) will feel at home only in appealing to the Talented Tenths of the various disempowered categories, because these people are at least partially bourgeoisified and deal in familiar methods and values. They're ready to _bore_from_within_, etc. The only way to drive a wedge into the identity that binds each category together and sequesters it from others is to expose the class war and propose an alternative. But that alternative is the end of Capital. Therefore, being soc-dems, they aren't going to go the route. It's against Rule One.
One thing I find odd about this list is the number of people of fairly leftish views who seem to think that soc-dem is a way-station on the road to revolution. I can't think of a single instance in history of it being anything of the kind. At best it is orthogonal, at worst a deadly obstruction -- exactly as we would expect. The ruling class plays with it according to conditions, rescinding this and that or sending forth some heroic fellow to restore bits and pieces like some Caesar strewing alms to the plebians. It is true that it produces benefits for many people, but those benefits have been brought about, as far as I can see, not by cooperating with Capital but by threatening it (carefully, so that buying off the threat always appears cheaper than suppressing it violently. I'm not saying that the liberal State can't be transformed peacefully, only that it can't be transformed from within its power hierarchy; that's like trying to pull a wagon while standing in it.)
> ...
> We should not hope for electoral victories: (1) because we will never
> get them, except at municipal levels; and (2) because we should not
> aspire to manage the working class for the benefit of capital (that's
> what electoral victories of the Left under capitalism amount to).
> Electoral campaigns are & should be for the sole purpose of political
> education & agitation, while forcing a few progressive reforms on the
> ruling class in the meantime, or more likely at present, preventing
> reactionary reform initiatives from coming to pass.
If by "progressive" you mean soc-dem or soc-dem lite, I don't see how any of it will ever lead to the revolutionary changes necessary to end the class system and the class war. I am told that Bismarck, a clever fellow, instituted Welfaristic institutions precisely to avert socialism, in his day the most popular candidate for bringing that to pass. However, this could be a good model: the Left raises the specters of socialism, communism, and anarchy according to taste and spreads them among the poor and the working class; if they have any success, the enlightened ruling class may break a few heads, but can be expected to respond with goods, services and glowing promises of a brighter tomorrow in order to compete.
One thing the Left does _not_ want to do is climb aboard the combined gravy train / Sherman tank of the Welfare State in any way that limits the leftists' abilities to agitate, subvert and seduce. "Ye are the salt of the earth", etc. That is why support of bourgeois electoral candidates is dubious, most especially ones that win and offer patronage.
(Also, of course, the Left does not want to give any excuse for violence and overt repression. We walk the razor's edge. _Ahimsa_ is not only a moral virtue but a tactical necessity.)