[lbo-talk] Re: Paul Felton: Open Letter to Progressive Democrats

[Carrol Cox]

To respond first to Ulhas's last question: "Is it the drive for higher
profitability that behind this programme?" The answer is tautological,
of course, that's what being a capitalist class _means_. But that drive
is always complicated, and operatesdirectly only in individual
enterprises, not in the capitalist class as a unity.

uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
> 
> Jon Johanning wrote:
> 
> > > Perhaps, because they have to compete with Mexican, Chinese and Indian
> > > workers?
> 
> > No, it's because they've allowed the labor movement to disintegrate to
> > a state of near collapse (aided by the ruling class, of course).

"They've allowed": What in the hell does this mean? All 280+million u.s.
workers got together in a big field and voted to let the capitalists do
as they please? This is just a variation on the old Trotskyist
explanation of "sell-out leaders," and explanation which explains
nothing since it itself needs explanation.
> 
> I was wondering if the globalisation of the reserve army of labour has
> contributed to this process.

Again, of course. But one can go on forever listing various elements in
a historical process without even making a beginning on _explaining_ the
process.


> Chomsky says that the US business is much more
> class conscious business community, unlike other countries.

Many have noted how class-conscious the u.s. ruling class has been from
the beginning: See James Madison, Federalist No. 10. (I think but it's
been a while since I read it, that Federalist # 51 is also
illuminating.) But that is a generalized fact, and probably different
explanations are needed for it at different times in u.s. history.

A pure speculation: The U.S. ruling class has always "felt" itself to be
in a more precarious position than have other ruling classes on the
whole. _If_ this were the case, then one would need to start looking for
what in the dynamic of u.s. history would be the material grounds for
such a consciousness. I'm not a historian, and I wouldn't even make a
guess at that, but perhaps some historian has???

To sum up: The questions being asked in this thread are improper
questions _unless_ it is recognized that no 500 word answer is even
going to provide a start in answering them. We can speculate, & note
various small patches of the elephant, but it is obscurantist to attempt
to offer a full answer in an e-mail post.

Carrol


> It's bent on
> rolling back the entire framework civil rights and welfare state within the
> US. Is it the drive for higher profitability that behind this
> programme?
> 
> Ulhas
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk