[WS:] But this is precisely what I was arguing - read what I actually wrote. I do not know where you got the idea that I claimed that welfare state was a challenge to capitalism - I thought I was quite clear that it was a way of sustaining it and dampen militant labor challenges.
And when I thought of European challenges to capitalism I did not have SPD in mind but successful and quasi successful attempts to take over the state (cf. Russia, Germany, Hungary, Spain) by radical communist groups, or a strong socialist labor movement in Sweden - something that just did not exist in the US, not even close. This is far from being impressionistic. The "specter of communism" was quite real in Europe, but it never was even a remote possibility in the US, "red scare" propaganda notwithstanding.
As to the usefulness of such comparisons - it depends how you want to use them, I suppose. I used them to a rather narrowly defined purpose - to explain why Euro-style social welfare policies were not implemented in the US, which I see as a better explanation than simply blaming the Democrats.
Wojtek
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Angelus Novus
<fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Wojtek:
>
>> To which Angelus replied that today Europe is just as neoliberal as the > US - which was quite tangential to my argument, and chastising me for
>> underestimating the revolutionary potential of the US masses.
>
> Just so as not to be misunderstood, I am not making any claims for inhabitants of the US one way or the other, just taking issue with your making generalized statements concerning the comparative potential for any kind of challenge to capitalism arising on both sides of the pond.
>
> I'm not sure how useful such comparisons are anyway, but if you're going to make such claims, it's best to state clearly some sort of commonly agreed upon measures that would allow one to make such claims, rather than vague hedging phrases. Otherwise, it's just subjective impressionism, whether you think the pre-1914 IWW in the US was a more formidable threat to the system than the pre-1914 SPD (neither succeeded in toppling capitalism, but at least the former maintained its integrity by never lending support to the mass slaughter of the First World War).
>
> I think your post just mixes up two things that don't necessarily correlate in any direct way: the different institutional frameworks for regulating capitalism in the US and in the various countries of Europe (themselves often incommensurable: See Franco's Spain vs. Adenauer BRD) and the separate issue of where a formidable challenge to the system is more likely to arise.
>
> On the former point, the mistake is assuming that the welfare state, financial regulation, etc. were intended to in any way impede the power of capital, as opposed to sustaining it. Before anybody jumps on me for the nth time, obviously it's much more preferable to live in a society with some of that social padding. But that guarantees nothing in terms of the likelihood of anti-systemic movements arising.
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>