Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
>
> 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?
I think in the case of the Wagner Act it does. (Civil Rights Act, and perhaps Social Security, probably fit your frame as well if not better than mine.) The Wagner Act I think was a setback for labor from the very beginning. Social Security was always inadequate, and the pretense that it was an insurance program laid the basis for its steady erosion (and I think threatened demise under some future DP administration unless there is a sharp reversal in u.s. politics). The deterioration of the inner cities may be more an effect of the Civil Rights Act than in spite of it.
Although several of the ABBs on this list have always emphasized how crucial the Soviet Union was to the social advances in the u.s., I don't think they (you) recognize how important a fact the _absence_ of the SU is in reference to DP policies. An old slogan is highly appropriate: The Enemy is United -- What about us? I think the ABB line (Lacny being an extreme case but perhaps emblematic) is a real barrier to building a new left.
Carrol
Carrol