>The choice is not
> between a party of reform and a party of stasis, but between a party of
> fast-track capitalist attack, and one of slower-track attack. But both
> are on the attack, and neither is a means of defense or a "salient
> starting point" for anything but further defeats.
=======================================
Since the demise of the socialist and communist parties committed to public
ownership, and the effective lack of same throughout US political history,
when has the choice for voters not been between two capitalist parties - one
liberal and the other conservative?
You make it sound as if the Democrats, the party of the liberal bourgeoisie, were at one time a genuine party of reform which at some unspecified point became a party of "stasis". It's never been either one or the other for the better part of the past century. It's oscillated between the two poles, depending on the nature of the historical period it was passing through.
When the economy is expanding and the political situation is stable, its reforms are modest and often hidden from public view, mostly limited to liberal appointments to the judiciary and regulatory agencies. When there are systemic crises to be addressed and it is under pressure to act from its members and the social constituencies which they represent, it undertakes more visible structural reforms. The Democratic party is, in short, a much more contradictory political formation than the Republican party. It's based on the unions and the various social protest organizations and it can't wholly ignore their demands - particularly when they take to the streets in a deepening crisis - even though the party leadership iis ultimately accountable to Capital. The DP is akin to contemporary social democratic parties elsewhere, which rest on the same social base and are equally pro-capitalist - opposing the parties to their right from the standpoint of what a "modernizing" capitalism requires. They identify this as going some way to meet - rather than repress - the demands of their supporters, as, for example, with respect to trade union rights, improved labour conditions, health care, public education, unemployment relief, social security, prohibitions against discrimination, etc.
I'm not unduly optimistic about the prospects for change in an Obama administration, particularly as there are no comparable organizations to the trade unions of the 30s or the civil rights movement of the 60s to drive that process forward. But I'm not so overwhelmed by the past three decades of worldwide capitalist advance and working class retreat that I'm ready to completely throw in the towel and rule out the possibility of any meaningful change, as you seem to be. Looking beyond Obama, the hopeful expectations awakened by his campaign, coupled with the current crises in US foreign and domestic policy, may portend a new era of change in US politics. We'll see. I'm much less confident about predicting the future than I once was - one way or the other.