--- On Wed, 6/17/09, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't be so categorical, but I basically agree. I wish
> more people on the left would see that it's structure of the
> US government that's doing much of the work, not "betrayal"
> or the perfidiousness of "the Democrats." Unfortunately
> Marx, being only one guy, didn't have quite enough time to
> do a full-scale analysis of the differential effects of
> alternative political institutions under capitalism, so the
> whole issue is now deemed "un-Marxist."
>
[WS:] True - but it is not just Marx's fault. The state is awfully unpopular on the left and thus often left out of the picture. It is the very nature of the US state and its institutional design, and not behavior of individual leaders that needs to be scrutinized, but such a scrutiny would emphasize the paramount role of key political institutions at the expense of that old myth of the left - the popular will.
As to the social security and medicare as national programs - they are national in geographical scope, but not universal. They target only a relatively narrow segment of the population and in the area where they do not threaten vital interests of the capitalist class. They were also sold as such to the public - as contributory social insurance "bought" or "earned" by individuals, and sharply contrasted to "government welfare programs" for "undeserving" poor. It is no coincidence that at the same time, more universal national initiatives, such as the 1945 Full Employment bill, were eagerly shut down by bipartisan effort. Such universal initiatives threatened not only capitalist control of labor, but also the political machines that could exist by dispensing jobs and patronage to supporters.
Wojtek