On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:02:58 -0400 Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>
writes:
> Doug:
> > The ideology got massive assistance from its oligarch friendliness,
> > for sure, but it wouldn't have gone anywhere if they (35 years ago
> I
> > would have said "we") hadn't persisted in prosyletizing for what
> felt
> > like a doomed struggle. In those days, Hayek was a relic and Marx
> > seemed fresh. There's a point to what Cde Cox likes to call dorm
> room
> > bull sessions.
>
> This seems to overlook the importance of two other key factors:
> - International relations, especially that a state nominally
> supporting
> progressive ideology was a force that had to be reckoned with -
> which is not
> the case today;
> - the inherent fat-headedness and reactionary sympathies of what HL
> Mencken
> called "Boobus Americanus" - and what Richard Hofstadter more
> accurately
> attributed to the reactionary nature of the key US institutions -
> evangelical religion and business - and its grip on the popular
> imagination,
> not counterbalanced by progressive institutions, especially
> organized labor.
>
> Stated differently, the demise of the progressive ideology and
> causes had
> little to do with what 'we' (i.e. lefties collectively) did or
> failed to do,
> but rather was caused by the oligarchy's renewed support for
> neo-liberalism
> thanks to technological advantage it gained in globalization, the
> demise of
> the USSR, and the natural responsiveness to right-leaning calls in
> the US
> populace. The left did not have a chance against that lineup.
That sounds basically right to me, although I would note that the swing to the right in the US began as early as 1975 when capital decided to go on the offensive as it was it was seeing its rates of profit getting squeezed with the heating up of international competition, the rise of real wages because of tight labor markets, and the rising costs due to various forms of progressive legislation that had been passed during the 1960s and 1970s to protect the rights of minorities, of women, and to protect the environment.
In other words capital was reacting against the successes of the 1960s social movements which were now impinging on its own profits. Hence, the swing to monetarism, deregulation, privatization, the attacks on labor unions, the whole "family values" thing, which was an attempt to shift the costs of social reproduction back from the state on to individuals and families.
Capital was determined to cut its costs as much as possible, hence, it went on a political offensive to roll back the gains of the 1960s, to discredit the programs of the Great Society and to weaken the social movements. All this was done by appeals to jingoism, racism, sexism. This is what gave the US, Carter, then Reagan. And in Britain, Callahan, then Thatcher.
The things that Wojtek talks about above came a little later but they certainly magnified the power of capital in relation to the rest of society. The increased mobility of capital undercut the bargaining power of workers, who found all their traditional weapons against capital rendered useless. And the collapse of the Soviet Union removed one of the pillars that supported the maintenance of a relatively generous welfare state as a means of keeping capitalism more attractive that Soviet-style socialism.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>