Marvin Gandall
...
4. The bourgeoisie eventually succumbed to demands for the universal franchise because because a) it had no choice if it wanted to end the turbulent disorder engendered by the mass campaigns for the extension of the franchise, and b) in so doing, it saw the opportunity to stem the growth of revolutionary anticapitalist ideas within the working class and to steer it onto the path of gradual and incremental reform within the framework of the existing system. This speaks to Charles' point: The people DID achieve in reality the right to vote, to peaceably assemble, and to form their own organizations without ending capitalism.
5. We should therefore view modern liberal democracy is a contradictory phenomenon, neither wholly deserving of praise nor of condemnation. It has served historically as a means for the popular classes to win reforms which ameliorated their conditions - which forced even hitherto revolutionary parties to adapt to electoral politics - while it at the same time has given capitalism unprecedented popular legitimacy.
...
7. The important point to note is that the masses have not tolerated the system because they have been converted to liberal values or because the are easily fooled. They have tolerated it because they have been able to make gains through it, which were a natural outgrowth of their struggles in the street. Ultimately, the only other means available to them would be armed struggle, which people engage in only as a desperate last resort when all peaceful channels for change are blocked.
8. In the final analysis, the political follows the economic. If and when the ruling class is no longer willing or able to improve conditions - and the two usually go together - revolutionary ideas within the population will necessarily develop. Capitalism hasn't been tested in this way since the 30's, which explains the long decline of the revolutionary left. It's success in broadly raising living standards explains why the reformist left has moved right over the generations in order to compete with the conservative parties in the electoral arena.
^^^^^ CB; Thanks for refining the point with your criticism, Marvin. I agree that the working masses have made political gains even under the capitalist mode. I'm thinking there is something of a one-step forward, two steps backward character to the history of U.S. democracy. Ok 1/2 step backward. Or maybe it's more like Zeno's paradox.
Recall Mike Ballard's post critiqing the democratic liberal forms, stripped significantly of content by various means. We have the universal franchise in form, but money and is able to keep real power away from the great mass of voters. We have significant freedom of speech from government interference, but not from private employer repression ,or repression of Communists or others who would challenge the system fundamentally. The U.S. revolutionary party genuinely sought to win socialism through electoral politics , but the powers-that-be cheated on the system in McCarthyism ( that the CP sought to overthrow the government by force and violence was a big lie). The bourgeois have allowed reforms, but not the freedom or fair political competition to take it all the way to revolution. So what you say is true: the people DID achieve in reality the right to vote, to peaceably assemble, and to form their own organizations without ending capitalism, but not quite fully , really. I certainly have avoided running for office as a you know what, because it would likely ruin me.
The masses have tolerated the system, in part because their most radical part has been denied democratic rights. The U.S. bourgeoisie have combined masterfully limited reforms with McCarthyism and Cold War strong arm tactics and the dominance of money to avoid a genuine contest over fundamentals.
One metaphor is reforms were used as a "vaccine". There's another term for it, but I can't think of it now.
^^^^^^
Andie: I am happy to see that people are thinking about how to be effective liberals rather than dissing the ideal. Some clarifications are called for. First, Power. Liberalism is about limiting state power. Obviously it has its own limitations in limiting economic power. That's a reason we need to be socialists too. (Happy, now, Charles? There's the red balloon.)
^^^^^ CB: I'd say reverse your emphasis. As Marvin says:
"8. In the final analysis, the political follows the economic."
The infrastructure should be red, then the hot air in the superstructure will follow.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't make the word describing the ideal "democratic" rather than "liberal". Democracy, as the Boys say, is the working class as the ruling class. Americans like the word "democratic" as much or more than "liberal". Just say we can't have real political democracy without socialist economy.