This, of course, begs the question why these instituional forces threw it weight behind the civil rights - or for that matter any social movement. My hypothesis is that the ruling class felth the heat of the cold war and were genuinely afraid of the USSR - and having blatrantlly racist elemnnts denying most fundamental civil rights to black in th eUs would undermine the US position vis a vis the USSR - especially in the Third World countries. In essence it was move to help the empire by suppressing the most reactionary and backward elements in it - which has historical precedence.
Another often missed element is that the CRM or the social reforms of the 1930s did not threaten any entrenched capitalist interests - so they faced no determined opposition from the business class. This is not the case of, say, the heatlh care reform whih threatens such entrenched capitalist interests. And that makes a difference between a success and a failure to implement a reform.
As to your view that it would only take a socialist revolution to reform the US system - I am not sure what you mean by that? It it means an armed guerill insurrection (a la Weather Underground, or Rote Armee Fraktion) - the futitlity of such efforts has been demonstrated time and again in many countries. If it means anyh radical overhaoul of the current system - it seems tautological.
My own opinion is that it will take a "move from above" to radically change the system, albeit it is not easy to identify what that "above" is. Nader thought of the super-wealthy, but i would bet on reformers within the government. But that, of course would require fertile conditions, such as prolonged stalemate between two parties that impede performance of critical government functions.
Wojtek
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>wrote:
> Wojtek writes:
>
>>
>> The problem, imho, is not the presidency but the US political party system
>> that is the root problem. This system needs to be broken to allow any
>> meaningful reform to take place. Unfortunately, the voters seem
>> collectively unable to move beyond that party system, and if they are
>> unhappy about the status quo they react totally within that system i.e.
>> vote
>> for the other party.
>>
>> [...]
> ===========================================
> It would take a socialist revolution to "break", ie. to destroy, the US
> political system and replace it with another one, if Marxist theory and
> past
> history is any guide.
>
> Short of that, the system can be bent to deliver reforms under capitalism,
> as we know from the struggles of workers in the 30's, blacks in the 60's,
> and women and gays in the 70's and 80's.
>
> But in each case these movements had to take to the streets to complement
> the electoral activity which enshrined their demands in legislation.
>
> I wouldn't counterpose one to the other. Both forms of mass activity are
> necessary. No legislation, no rights. No demonstrations and other forms of
> "extra-parliamentary" action, including civil disobedience, no legislation.
>
> The Republican right has taken to the streets. It may be slowly dawning on
> the liberal left in and around the Democratic party that unless they
> likewise begin to pressure the Obama administration by mobilizing their
> forces outside of the electoral system, meaningful reform is beyond reach.
>
> It's too early to throw in the towel, but if there is no more motion on the
> left over the next year and the initiative remains with the the right,
> there'a real possibility the "centre" will shift back to the Republicans in
> the midterm election.
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>