[WS:] I pretty much agree with your take on the issue, except the above statement. To my mind, "capitalism" is like "god" - a word to which people attribute any meaning they want to, and which as a result means nothing in particular. It is like a Rorschach blot, if you will. It follows, therefore, that action verbs "overthrow" or "reform" cannot be meaningfully applied to the term "capitalism" - just as reforming or overthrowing a god or a Rorschach blot does not have any empirical meaning.
To my mind, things that you mention "levels of social spending and taxation, intervention in the economy, and the rights of trade unions, national minorities, women, and other disadvantaged groups" as well as a few others, such as availability and quality of public services (education, health care, transportation, etc.) administration of justice, and regulation of commerce and industry - have empirical meaning and are all that really matters. All modern states have these things in varying degrees and the point for me is to have more of those things, not less. And it does not matter to me whether the "more of these things" is called 'socialism' 'welfare state' 'reformism' 'capitalism with a human face' or 'shit on a stick.'
And the reason why we have less of those things than we used is that business owners substantially increased the capacity to "make the economy scream" if thing do not go their way, whereas employees virtually all that capacity. That did not escape the attention of politicians - they know that there will be a much higher cost if they cross business interests than if they do the same to employee interest. The recent development in France is a good example.
So in my mind, the point is to gain the capacity of "making the economy scream" as working class and the unions used to have. That means anything from being able to interfere with their communication and money transfer system to the ability to strike corporate targets in any place on earth where they hide. Having that capacity would make politicians listen and give us more of the things that I just listed. And that is the ultimate goal. Everything else is just paroles, paroles, paroles ....
Wojtek
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2010-10-27, at 11:18 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>> Michael Lind is right on the target. "Tea party" just a marketing
>> gimmick to re-brand the Repug party after its dismal performance under
>> Bush jr. But as Lind aptly observes - it is the same old Repug shit
>> wrapped in a different paper.
>>
>> If this re-branding will produce a balance of power shift in November
>> - it will be mainly because it will encourage the repug supporters to
>> vote, while the dem supporters will be more likely to stay home,
>> discouraged by two years of truly dismal performance of the dem party.
>>
>> But as Thomas Frank aptly observed in "What is the Matter with Kansas"
>> - this whole repug mobilization is just a storm in a tea cup - pure
>> posturing to mobilize voters that will have zero impact on what this
>> "movement" is promising to accomplish. They made a lot of promises to
>> end abortion but accomplished nothing. Likewise, they make a lot of
>> promises to reverse the health care "reform" but they will accomplish
>> nothing - mainly because what Obama administration implemented was
>> originally a repug own plan. And if the tea/repug party activists
>> feel betrayed - they will have to live with it. It is not the first
>> and not the last time time.
>>
>> In sum, the upcoming November circus will produce no change in the
>> policy course. It is a pure professional wrestling game - posturing
>> that has zero impact on everyday life. It does not matter who wins -
>> as it has not since the election of FDR.
>
> I agree with your comments, except for your last sentance. Both parties jointly administer the capitalist system, so your statement is correct so far as it goes. For many US leftists who want to see the system replaced, that is as far as it needs to go. But this is a narrow and simplistic view of US politics.
>
> For most Americans past and present, the issue has never been the overthrow of capitalism but its reform, over which there have been very substantial and often violent disagreements between the classes, and where it has mattered which party won. Even in periods like the present, who governs still matters to Americans on both sides because there remain differences between the parties over levels of social spending and taxation, intervention in the economy, and the rights of trade unions, national minorities, women, and other disadvantaged groups which bear directly on their interests. The differences have narrowed, but that is because there are no active reform movements from below to counter the pressures on the Democratic leadership emanating from Wall Street. The reasons why this is so go deeper than the one most commonly offered on the left: that, for various reasons, it has been unable to reach the masses to "explain" why the system should be overthrown. But that is the !
> subject for another post.
>
> Meanwhile, from a Bloomberg poll released today:
>
> "Republicans are seeing their strongest support among men, senior citizens and those with incomes of more than $100,000. Democrats have their strongest support among many of the same groups that helped Obama win in 2008: younger voters, women, those with incomes below $25,000 and non-whites."
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-28/republicans-winning-house-get-no-mandate-in-poll-showing-clinton-approval.html
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>