Ian Murray wrote:
>
> >
>
> The left should play this
I think the implicit and explicit assumption for all threads on these maillists should _not_ be what "the left" should or should not do, since no Left exists in North America. Rather, the overriding concern should be, what activities by individual leftists can best contribute to the formation of a left. Discussion of what "The Left" should do tend to be utopian.
Alternatively, discussions of what "The Left" should do could be hypothetical, all such discussions being embedded in some projection of what kind of future context would be required for the debate to be meaningful.
For example, Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema recently wrote as follows:
<<< Is there some technical objection to what, to me, seems an obviously appealing demand -- for straightforward abolition of the FICA and Medicare taxes, and financing of Social Security and MC out of income taxes?
I understand that that would be a political departure. But a political departure, under the right circumstances would be a way to attract support to a progressive position. But is there some complexity of implementation that I don't get?
Why haven't progressives put forward this seemingly obvious and clear demand, which would lead to a drastic reduction in most people's tax burden and a democratization of the tax structure? >>>
John K. Taber replied as follows:
<<< The objection is political, not technical. The fear is that the imperative for Social Security will lose moral force if it is funded directly out of general funds.
There are people who want to end Social Security, and they work hard at doing so. One impediment to their goal is the feeling of entitlement that paying FICA taxes gives taxpayers to the benefits. I read someplace that Roosevelt was quite conscious of the point.
Your point about the tax burden is well taken, it is regressive, however, the benefit computation compensates for the regression. I read someplace that the regressive tax vs the progressive benefit computation comes out a wash.
If we didn't have such a troglodyte political system, your suggestion would be quite reasonable.>>>
Here we see another bit of evidence of how disastrous was the decision of the CPUSA in 1936 to back Roosevelt. Chris's suggestion is no more unfeasible now than was the proposal for the eight hour day in the 1880s. "If we didn't have such a troglodyte political system" we would all be sunning ourselves at the beach or out fishing instead of debating what the left should do. It is almost tautological that all left proposals should be such as to demand some alteration in the current political system, and to return to my point of departure, I suggest that leftists today (in the absence of A Left) should be discussing precisely (a) under what conditions Chris's proposal could be raised and propagated, (b) how as individuals we can contribute to the creation of those conditions, and (c) if in fact we can't so contribute what should be the focus of our present deliberations, the assumption being that those delibarations can have no present impact.
I would suggest tentatively that one precondition for the emerging of "A Left" in the United States is the massive discrediting of the Democratic Party among its chief constituencies. So a major matter for present consideration should be how the scattered elements of a non-existent left can best contribute to such discrediting.
On April 20 I wrote a post entitled "The Conditions of Utopia," in which I explored the relationship between present and future for purposes of leftist discussion and action. This post is written within the framework suggested then, and I am appending that post below.
Carrol
==========
Subject: The Conditions of Utopia was Re: corporations as people
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:00:40 -0500
From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >Oops, sorry, there I go talking about alternatives again, silly utopian
> > me.
>
> Not a problem here! Utope away.
>
Talking abour alternatives _in itself_ is not utopian. But to talk about an alternative (even an alternative plan for a cocktail party or a day at the beach) in isolation from a careful consideration of the kind of conditions that would make the alternative a issue is something else. What are the processes through which the working class would be in a position to impose any kind of structure. What kind of social conditions would such processes create? (For example, would the last 5 years of the route to socialism lay waste through riots all the major cities and wreck the power network?) And so forth. If you talk about an alternative assuming that conditions in which it will be implemented do not differ fundamentally from present conditions, then you are being worse than utopian, you are being silly.
Would the conditions under which a day at the beach is possible include transportation systems not operative, plans for the beach would be silly.
Prior to any socialist regime in the u.s. (whether 'peacefully' achieved or by insurrection) there will be immense bloodshed for many prior years. That's the way the capitalist state operates. Were a real socialist party to become a significant threat to gain electoral power in even one state, death squad activity would balloon. That would make many people unhappy, and various kinds of nuts would begin to operate in individualist ways. That would both make more people unhappy and trigger more police violence and repression. Property would be destroyed. Politicians would be assassinated. Et cetera. How do those workers who are going to run those cooperatives get the training to be responsible?
You can't separate pictures of results from descriptions of the modes of struggle (and the modes of repression) that might make those results possible.
Carrol