jks
--- Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at dodo.com.au> wrote:
> At 1:04 PM -0500 7/2/04, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> >I wish one of you would respond to my argument that
> a Dem president
> >provides a better discursive and organzing
> environment for more
> >radical critiques of The System. That hardly
> strikes me as panicked
> >passivity or surrender - it's just the opposite.
>
> I think I have responded to this before, but either
> I haven't or you
> have paid no regard to the response.
>
> Does the wolf in sheep's clothing provide "a better
> discursive and
> organzing environment for more radical critiques of
> The System"?
>
> The danger with the slightly lefter party in a two
> party democracy is
> that they are far more successful at implementing
> the right-wing
> agenda than the openly right-wing politicians like
> Bush. At least
> that is my experience. For example it was the
> previous democrat
> administration in the US that implemented the
> horrific welfare
> "reforms" which I think someone has already
> mentioned is one of the
> most vicious acts of class warfare in living memory.
>
> Another example here in Australia (besides similar
> welfare "reform")
> is the wholesale privatisation of government owned
> enterprises, in
> conjunction with de-regulation of industries, which
> was the work of
> the Australian Labor Party.
>
> In practical terms, it is simply easier for them to
> get away with
> this sort of class warfare, because they can
> undermine, bribe and
> coerce the only forces of resistance. Because these
> potential forces
> of effective resistance (such as the union movement)
> are ALLIED with
> the left party, they can be neutralised. Whereas, if
> the
> conservatives tried the same thing, resistance would
> be fierce, when
> the leftists try it there is no resistance at all.
> (Obviously not
> from the right, because it is the right's platform,
> but also not from
> the leadership of the union movement, because they
> are mostly
> careerists, "mates" with the leftist ruling party.)
>
> Not to mention the fact that many people are simply
> taken in by the
> wolf in sheep's clothing, whereas with the wolf in
> wolf's clothing,
> the sheep are instantly suspicious.
>
> So you are simply wrong, it is a fact that the
> election of a Democrat
> administration in the US would actually create a
> much more hostile
> environment for resisting regressive class warfare
> by the government.
> There would be significantly less likelihood of any
> resistance within
> the machinery of government of course (because the
> Republicans
> probably won't resist the Democrats doing their
> dirty and unpopular
> work for them.) There will be fewer potential allies
> within the union
> movement and the activist movement as well, because
> these people will
> try to make excuses for them, or will hope for
> favours from them, or
> be compromised by past favours from them.
>
> It would be an even more hopeless situation. I have
> been chipped
> about using this sort of absolute turn of phrase
> before, but I'm
> going to have to do so again I'm afraid - you are
> dead wrong.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html