[lbo-talk] Blue Dogs cashing in

[Marv Gandall]

Wojtek writes:
>
> [WS:]  Marv, I really enjoy reading your postings and agree with most of
> what you say.  However, I do not buy your concept, shared by wide segments
> of the left, that things in the US can change if only the working class
> "choose" to "organize" better.  They cannot and the whole history of this
> country is a living proof of that.  Although there has been an
> institutional sea change in virtually all industrialized countries in the
> world, the US institutional framework remains pretty much intact since its
> inception in 1776 with one important exception - the establishment of the
> standing army after the Civil War, which revolutionized the entire US
> foreign policy.

Thanks, ditto. My last reply to Carrol touches on the issue you raise. I
think the US working class is much like any other - it acts mainly from
necessity rather than choice in defence of it's interests, and, with the
exception of healthcare, has largely succeeded in forging the same
institutional framework of rights and benefits as the social democratic
parties have done in the other welfare capitalist states. Any lag in
political consciousness - it has historically channeled its demands through
a bourgeois liberal rather than a socialist party - is mainly attributible
to the higher living standards American capitalism, endowed with abundant
resources and insulated from war and revolution on it's own territory, was
able to deliver to it's working class until relatively recently. The US is
not unique in subjugating the state and other social institutions to
business interests, although this arrangement found it's highest expression
in the country where capitalism was most highly developed. As for the
present, I can't see where the angry mood but quiescent political behaviour
of US workers in the current crisis is exceptionally different from that of
most workers in Europe, Japan, and the other OECD countries. Can you?

[...]


>
> The main reason for that is the the US democracy has been founded too
> soon, in an era when key elements of modern democracy, such as
> proportional political representation or the fundamental role of the state
> in the provision of public welfare, were virtually unknown.  The US
> democracy was established by enlightened oligarchs who implemented some
> very progressive at the time ideas, but who were also, or above all
> businessmen - merchants, plantation owners, financiers, etc. - and thus
> made sure that the new state they established was not only as business
> friendly as possible but also that also that it stayed that way in the
> future.  Hence the entire institutional edifice that dissipates the
> political power as much as possible and subjugates it to business
> interest.
>
[...]
>
> Since this has not changed for the past 200 years, it is unlikely to
> change in the foreseeable future, as long as there is a flow in the funnel
> that connects government to business, and public funds to private profits.
> It has been a very successful racket, a goose that lays golden eggs for
> both businessmen and politicians, and there is no way that the business
> and the political classes are going to give it up.  But since this
> funnel-like relation between government and business is the most essential
> core of the entire US state apparatus, changing it is not possible without
> the destruction of the US state.  And that is simply not within the reach
> (not even close) of any political force in the modern world, let alone the
> emasculated working class or the marginalized Left.
>