On 2011-12-22, at 2:11 PM, c b wrote:
> Marv Gandall
>
> Maybe some of our European friends on the list will answer more fully.
> If Canada's social democratic party is any guide - and this would also
> apply to the Democratic base in the US, as well - they do not
> "support" the cutbacks as such, but grudgingly bow to their leaders'
> rationale that the right wing will cut even more deeply and attack the
> very foundations of their social gains and institutions, ie. lesser
> evilism. The parallel is trade union majorities who accept concessions
> in pay, benefits, and work rules as as a means of staving off what
> they fear will be a worse alternative (layoffs).
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: ...A fundamental problem would seem to be that the vast majority of the
> working class don't think socialism is an alternative to capitalism.
People are typically cautious and have to be pretty desperate to overthrow what is familiar to them and what they've been conditioned to believe. They'll first exhaust all possibilities for reforming capitalism, a process which we can see unfolding in tandem with the economic crisis. So while a large majority doesn't see socialism as an alternative - the public has only hazy and conflicting notions of what the term actually means - polls typically indicate majority support for domestic and foreign policies emanating from the liberal and radical left, even among workers under the sway of right wing parties, who nominally blame minorities, immigrants, liberals, and governments rather than the system for their problems.
>
> The social democratic and trade union leaders, for their part,
> especially since globalization and tech change eroded the power of the
> organized working class, view the relationship of forces as adverse,
> fear the bond markets, and are consequently reluctant to mobilize
> their followers in any deep and sustained confrontation with
> international capital.
>
> ^^^
> CB: Ok but the relationship of forces wouldn't be adverse if 90% of
> the working class was against austerity and other neo-liberal
> assaults.
Not necessarily. You can be against cuts to your standard of living and still be reluctant to engage in strikes, civil disobedience, and other militant actions if you fear it will lead to defeat or reprisals or worsen rather than improve your conditions, especially when this message is conveyed to you by trade union and political leaders in whom you still stubbornly have confidence.
> Perhaps racism plays a part amongst trade union followers of the
> right-wing parties in France, Italy, Hungary, Austria, etc., but I
> don't think this is true of the majority. The trade unions are more
> racially and ethnically heterogeneous than they used to be.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
> CB: There has to be a very big minority of the working class who
> potentially vote right-wing, otherwise, there would be no possibility
> of right wing parties getting elected and therefore no pressure on the
> "lesser evils" to do small evil to avoid big evil.
I don't know how big a minority, but certainly the right wing parties would have to capture a sizeable share of the working class vote to form a government. For many of them, I'll bet it's more a case of voting against incumbent left-centre governments which have presided over austerity, coupled with the desparate hope that conservative promises to restore growth and jobs without inflicting greater pain on them will prove to be more than the demagoguery it is.
>
> ^^^^^
>
> You started by saying there have been giant and varied protests in the
> EU countries, which would suggest a "substantial majority" are not as
> passive and accepting of austerity as you go on to say.
>
> ^^^^
> CB: If there were a substantial majority protesting, why would the Soc
> Dems have to cave to the austerity demands of finance capital ? That
> was my original point. I see these giant demos, but the Soc Dem
> government leaders ignore them and impose austerity.
The social democratic parties are liberal bourgeois parties which attempt to mediate between the capitalists and their working class followers. So it doesn't follow that they can therefore be counted on to succumb to pressures from the majority of their followers, many of them actively protesting in the streets, to resist the austerity drive. In fact, as the social weight of the trade unions has shrunk over the past three decades, the social democratic parties have distanced themselves even further from the labour movements and their allies who produced them. As global capital has become more integrated and mobile, they have even less confidence in nationalization as a means of compensating for capital flight and a much greater fear of the bond markets.
> And as the threats of the Portugese social democratic leader
> (admittedly now from the safety of opposition) to use the "nuclear
> threat" of a full and unilateral default indicate, the growing mass
> protest from below is placing pressure on these left-centre
> leaderships to adapt. But that is also true of many bourgeois
> politicians and pundits to their right who have concluded it is in the
> political and economic interests of the system to halt or slow down
> the austerity drive and to restore economic growth and social order
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: That's good news. I was waiting for such a turnaround…
The social democrats are always loud in opposition and timid in government, but when the language of the party leaders stimulates rather dampens the desire for change at the base, I think we agree it should always be fastened upon rather than scorned.