Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 10:24 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> > But they want to deliver a lot more than they have which is zip.
>
> Then why don't they? Can it really be lack of brains or backbone? Or
> is there some structural reason for chronic "nondelivery"? Maybe they
> don't really want to deliver?
>
First a question. Where did I pick up the argument that the period 1929-1975 was an aberration in the history of capitalism, and that neither the dramatic plunge of 1929 or the "golden age" of 1950-75 would be repeated? I would like to see more discussion of that because it makes sense to me but I'm not sure of thearguments behind it. At the Marxism 2009 conference one figure tossed arund a good deal was that (measured by decades, the mean wages of labor increased every decade from 1820 to 1970 -- that even in the 1930s prices fell more rapidly than wages. And the argument from this was that the 'model' for our future was 1970 to the present -- the freezing of the standard of living. I have no way to judge how important this is if true or what the basis of it is.
Theories such as these would explain a good deal about post-1970 politics. Put crudely, 'the system' is NOT going to 'deliver.' "Globalism," whatever else it has done, has vastly increased the size of the reserve army of labor, imposing severe limits on the political and economic power of workrs, here and around the world. And we are then back to Jimmy Carter's "The World is not Fair." That becomes the foundation of ruling-class politics.
Also. Is the following true.
For actual delivery of social services adequate for present needs of masses of people, two things would have to occur: 1) taxes raised sharply 2) sharp cuts in the military budget, which would cripple the ability of the u.s. to act as global policeman for capital. Neither, for a number of reasons, is going to happen.
The political probblem then for the DP is how most felicitously to refuese to deliver while not completely losing its base. (I assume that DP politicians are willing to risk losing this or that election rather than sacrifice principle (principle being the disciplingin of labor). But it would be a disaster not just for the DP but for the stability of u.s. society if a Party of the (illusory) left could not remain a significant force. Tha Parties for a century have been trading places every 8 to 12 years, and I would imagine that on the whole they find that quite acceptable. But surely it is essential for capital that the real yahoos not become established in power with no counterforcee. Hence the essential need for a DP that maintains its base but does not deliver to that base.
Thinking out loud.
Carrol