The problem with this metaphor is that it is rather static and excludes the possibility of earth shaking changes almost by definition. Hitler may have been intially bankrolled by capitalists who wanted to curb the growing union militancy - as the puppet theater metaphor would want us to belive - but he transformed the show in a way that his supposed puppet master could not even imagine in thier wildest dreams. In effect, he became th epupp-et master while the supposed masters wre reduced to puppets - something that the puppet theater metaphor is inacpable of accounting for.
It is quite possible that a political faction in the US, perhaps suported by some monied interest, can create a political dynamics that will take the country in a direction that noone, including the leaders that started this movement though was possible. There are many historical examples of that process, Hitler, Pinochet, Gorbachev, Milosevic, to name th emost obvious. They all started as as effort to "revive" stalemated political systems and created political dynamics that transformed those systems into something that coul dne be predicted by the configuration of forces in those systems.
The US is a downwardly mobile nation facing great unceratinties - falling profit rates, stargflation and recurrent economic crises, growing foreign competition and loss of hegemony, growing social polarization, growing cost of maintaining the status quo, systemic underinverstment in public goods to name a few - that nobody really know how to handle. There are many different groups with diverse and often copntradicting interests in that process - but these diverse interests are channeled through a fundamentally 19th century system of patronage politics, in which political parties broker the privileged access of selected groups to government and ultimately, to public coffers.
It is clear to me that political parties, far from being puppets manipulated by hidden puppet masters (the notorious"ruling elite") - are central figures and power brokers in this process who procure and dispense political patronage that is essential for the survival of many business interest. It is also clear to me that as the US declines, the demands for patronage will increase, while the ability of political parties to deliver that patronage will decrease. The predictable outcome is increased political competition over diminishing deliverables. It is not difficult to imagine that this environment will eventually beget a radical faction - some teabager party if you will - whose initial effort to gain upper hand for themselves or their political clients will start a process that will make the impossible happen.
Prior to 1930, Germany was a social democracy (social democrats were getting most of the votes) known for its high culture and civilization. Nobody could have predicted that in just a few years it would descend into utmost barbarism, followed by nearly total destruction of its cultural legacy. While I am not arguing that similar form of fascism is bound to descend on the US, I also see a real possiblity of a movement that will wipe out what most Americans take for granted today. Social security could be one of may casualties of that movement.
Wojtek
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>wrote:
> I'm not persuaded that Americans, including right-wing working class
> Republicans, will simply acquiesce to rollbacks to Medicare, Social Security
> and other well-entrenched social programs as suggested below - even if there
> is no organized left to speak of, even if the Democrats (no shoo-ins for a
> second term at this stage, BTW) are assigned the task of imposing austerity,
> even given the current low level of working class political consciousness.
>
> 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 mu!
> ch 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
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>