I suspect the US ruling class has a better appreciation than many of us of the potential for significant popular unrest, and of the need to carefully and systematically prepare public opinion, including through a high-profile commission of purportedly "neutral" experts duly deliberating and recommending a series of budget cuts to Congress. The institutions of state are split between those who lean towards higher taxes (Democrats) and those who favour deep spending cuts (Republicans), and some mix of the two will emerge which is impossible to discern at this stage. There is talk of raising the retirement age, introducing a VAT, and eliminating popular tax exemptions, which in themselves would be controversial and certain to provoke resistance, but I doubt the US bourgeoisie has either the class interest or political will to engage in the more sweeping assault on social programs that some on the left are anticipating. Such a prognosis overlooks that the welfare state was as much the product of the ruling class adapting to the requirements of a modern economy as to social pressure from below, and that the reduction of mass purchasing power below a certain level is bad for business.
Which is not an argument for complacency, but to suggest rather the opposite: that the outlook is not that bleak, and the prospect of a fightback has not disappeared.
On 2010-02-17, at 6:18 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> SA wrote:
>>
>> Eric Beck wrote:
>>
>>>>> The U.S. welfare state was always tiny and is now tinier, not to
>>>>> mention largely ineffective and highly regulative. Let it die, people.
>>>>>
>>>> Are you dependent on Medicare, Social Security, or Food Stamps?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I was trying to be a little provocative. I knew you'd bite ;-)
>>>
>>
>> You don't really give off much of an air seriousness with this stuff. Do
>> you want to let the welfare state die, or are you just being
>> provocative? Should attempts to kill off the welfare state be opposed,
>> or does it not make enough of a difference to care? You seem to want to
>> take a let-it-die position without actually taking responsibility for
>> that position. Is this what passes for radical chic these days?
>
>
> Opposed with what? E*ric can have his fun precisely because, without a
> real left, talking about opposing the attack on the welfare state is as
> empty as Eric's chatter.
>
> How do scattered leftists become even the core of a possible organized
> left? Right now, that is rather more important than the question of what
> a left, if it existed, should or shouldn't do
> Carrol
>>
>> SA
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk