Marvin Gandall wrote;
Yes, I agree with how you formulate it: "Capitalists usually prefer the A team...but may turn to the B team" when they are having a "hard time" - usually when the system is threatened and the A team is wholly discredited.
That's rather different than suggesting, as others have, that these parties are basically the same in that they are all working towards the "destruction of the welfare state".
There are still important distinctions to be drawn between the liberal and conservative parties in relation not only to the central economic issues (level of public benefits and regulation), but also social (reproductive and minority rights), and political (separation of church and state and defence of democratic rights) ones. Some minimize these issues and differences out of a sense that no matter how they are resolved, the system of power and property will still remain largely intact. But the reform parties are not for the overthrow of the current system, never have been. In that sense, they "support capitalism". Some revelation. And while it's true that, within this framework, the distinctions have become blurred between the system's parties, this is mainly a reflection of the structural shift in the balance of forces between Labour and Capital over the past three decades. The shrinking social weight of organized labour has diminished its political ability to affect the direction of these parties.
But there's scant evidence that the liberal parties are committed in theory or practice, as are the conservative parties favoured by Capital, to the general destruction of the welfare state, and most of their followers don't interpret the behaviour of their leaders in this way. The splits in these parties mostly turn on whether the strategies for reform being pursued by their leaders are too timid (or, sometimes, too risky), rarely on the perception that they are out to dismantle the social safety net on behalf of the capitalists.
To see the evolution of these parties otherwise - as primarily the result of treacherous misleaders befuddling their members on behalf of the corporations - is misleading and disarming. It's why accusations of "betrayal" ring hollow to the ranks - to the consternation of many on the left who bemoan the "low level of consciousness" of the masses, without at the same time acknowledging to themselves that, if this is so, it must sooner or later lead to the conclusion that the masses have a congenital inability to make the right choices to govern themselves.
MG
*********************************
I think that to regard Repubs/Tories as status quo parties, and the Dems/New Labourites as reform parties is a little out of date. Unless, of course, by "reform," you mean its new definition, i.e. changes that favor capital, in which case all of these parties can correctly be called parties of reform.
Look at the record. We had eight years of Clinton. Did his administration leave the US a more left-wing or a more right wing-country? Who abolished welfare, vastly expanded the prison system, strengthened the death penalty? Who pulled out all stops to get NAFTA through Congress? Who was about to introduce private social security accounts before his penis got in the way? These were reforms alright--the same kind the Republicans aim for. Although the Democratic Party may contain liberal reformists, its leadership has been committed for years to taking the country in the same direction as the Republicans, at least as far as the economy is concerned. The debate revolves around how far and how fast to go. At most it can be said that they have moved more hesitantly and less willingly than the Rebublicans. But still they move. They are also more liberal on the "social issues," although the Roberts nomination probably shows that Bush doesn't want to abolish Roe v. Wade, only to restrict its application, and that liberal fears in this regard may be exaggerated. Bush can't pander to his fundamentalist base at the expense of all other constituencies.
As for the "masses", I do think they are deluded and manipulated most of the time. This is what capitalist and social-democratic politicians, corporate media , union bureaucrats and NGO hustlers specialize in and are very accomplished at. I think many among the "masses" may also in a certain sense be complicit in their own deception. It isn't always easy to acknowledge the truth. Doing so may involve a break with everything one has been taught to believe, and may also suggest courses of action that are hard to carry out. People tend to believe what it is useful over what is true. This is why, IMO, Noam Chomsky is a little naïve to think that people would act differently if only apprised of the facts. The facts are often indigestible.
I do think, though, that deception has its limits. Crises often force people to see through official lies and discard the ones they tell themselves. Scenes of death and destruction in Iraq seem to be sharpening a few minds right now.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20050823/ca31eddf/attachment.htm>