> Marvin Gandall wrote:
> >
> >
> > Powerful social forces underlay these developments, but in some cases
the
> > way was smoothed by protective Democratic legislation like the Wagner
and
> > Civil Rights Acts.
>
> No. The Wagner Act was a _result_ of the powerful social forces, and far
> from smoothing the way for them was a way of bringing them under
> control. In fact Social Security, the Wagner Act, and the Civil Rights
> Act were all nearly textbook instances of the primary function of the
> DP, to absorb, blunt, and trivialize powerful social movements.
>
> I think Jim is correct, that a Kerry victory will be a serious threat to
> Social Security.
-----------------------------------
Sure, Carrol, but I also added:
"Marxists saw such legislation as designed in large part to contain these movements within the framework of the existing system, which is certainly true, but that doesn't negate that they still produced the necessary reforms which Marxists also fought for and supported."
One statement doesn't contradict the other, does it?
And I agree also that a Kerry victory would not eliminate the threat to Social Security -- that is at the forefront of the corporate agenda -- but I think deeper cuts would be planned by the Bush administration, which would face little or no resistance from its own ranks, nor from a Democratic base demoralized and sidelined, without access. A Kerry victory would be accompanied by the raised expectations of the DP base, and would thereby at least create the potential for a fightback. Moreover, a Democratic administration, even indepenently, would likely be tempted to veto proposals emanating from a Republican Congress in preparation for the mid-term elections.
MG