[lbo-talk] Defining Conservatism Down

[Jim Devine]

On 8/22/05, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> By this logic, shouldn't the capitalists have turned to Democratic and
> Labour politicians like Mondale, Dukakis, and Michael Foot as instruments of
> their post-70s offensive to privatize and deregulate the welfare state
> rather than to Republicans and Conservatives like Reagan and Thatcher?
> Shouldn't Wall Street have supported Kerry over Bush as the better bet to
> privatize social security and defend the tax cuts for the rich, as well as
> to push other items on the corporate legislative and regulatory agenda?

Big capital isn't a unified political force. But the system they've
set up over many years implies that it doesn't really matter much to
capital whether it's Bush or Kerry who wins. Bush may be unseemly
because his rule favors immediate capitalist profit over long-term
solutions. Kerry may have been poor because one or two of his ideas
may have stepped on some individual capitalist toes. But neither was
in any way a threat. It was an insiders' debate.

-- 
Jim Devine
"He should take it easy." -- my cat's vet.