> [WS:] I am not denying the importance of direct action, but i think that
> activists and left in general tend to grossly overestimate its importance
> while ignoring the effects of institutional factors. The civil rights
> movement (CRM) succeeded not because "people were in the streets" - that
> itself could be easily contained by the riot police. it succeeded because
> the administration and the mainstream media establishment wanted it to
> succeede and gave it all the support they could to sway the public opinion
> in its favor.
MG: Demonstrations, especially, when they turn violent or threaten to radicalize a segment of the population, are destabilizing - even when they are contained. I think the demos and marches made more of an impression on LBJ and the rest of the administration and congress than any particular committment he had to the civil rights movement, especially as they attracted increasing support from within his party's core black and liberal base. It was this powerful "public opinion" from below which influenced the administration and the rest of political and media establishment, rather than the other way round, as you have it.
>
> 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.
MG: This, too, though I think the domestic factors took precedence, in the
same way domestic factors took precedence during the New Deal in the 30's,
though the Roosevelt administration also saw the concessions as a means of
blunting the growing appeal of the Soviet Union at home and abroad.
>
> 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.
MG: No question. I have yet to hear of a reform within a capitalist country which decisively eroded the power and property of the ruling class. Within the capitalist framework, however, movements for reform have won significant rights and benefits.
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.
MG: I don't know on what basis you single out health care. The impact of even a single payer health care reform would have no more or less an effect on "entrenched capitalist interests" than did the granting of trade union rights in the 30's or subsequent affirmative action and non-discriminatory legislation with respect to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Universal medicare didn't have an appreciably different impact on Canadian, European, and other capitalist societies than did these other reforms.
> 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?
MG: I said that only a socialist revolution could "break" the liberal democratic electoral system - "break" being the term you used. I should have added a fascist takeover would accomplish the same result. Neither possibility is on the horizon at present.
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.
MG: The Marxist and fascist states did not "radically overhaul" liberal democractic multi-party systems. They replaced them with their own models. We agree small urban guerrilla groups lacking a mass base are a tragic exercise in futility.
>
> 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.
MG: I believe all reform ultimately requires the consent of the ruling class, or at least a dominant liberal wing of it. If there is no consent, there is repression of the mass movement agitating for it. The two parties do not exist apart from the ruling class. Their respective leaderships reflect the competing programmes of the liberal and conservative factions of the ruling class, or, if you prefer, the elites or the establishment. In most cases, the reforms, suitably adapted, coincide with ruling class interests - whether the universal franchise, improved health care and santitation, public education, union rights and social programs which boosted mass purchasing power, the integration of blacks, women, gays and other new layers of skilled labour into the modern work force, etc.
>
> 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
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk