Actually, they support state capitalism under the name of "progressivism" or "putting people first" or some equally inane goo-goo slogan. Just about every part of the Progressive/New Deal agenda reflected the interests of big business in cartelizing and stabilizing the corporate economy; it was just sold to the public as a "progressive" restraint on big business.

Please bear in mind that what was called "socialism" by democratic socialists in the 1920s would not have been recognized as such by most of the classical socialists of the nineteenth century. The difference reflects the New Class takeover of the working class movement, by Leninists and Fabians, at the turn of the century.

Revisionist historians like Gabriel Kolko and James Weinstein called the phenomenon "political capitalism" or "corporate liberalism." Murray Rothbard agreed with their analysis. Whatever you call it, it is organized capital acting through the state. The court intellectuals of corporate liberalism (Art Schlesinger) like to depict the movement as an idealistic attempt to set "countervailing power" against the giant corporations. And a lot of big business propagandists like to howl about how "anti-business" forces have won consistently. But in fact, it is a case of Brer Rabbit hollering "Please don't fling me in that briar patch!"

Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:58:42 EDT

I tend to agree with Marc, but it's worth note that while no avowed socialist
has ever gotten into the double-digits (Eugene V. Debs peaked at 6% in 1912),
the Democratic Party has enacted virtually every plank in the 1928 Socialist
Party platform, and the Republicans have come to accept virtually all of it
too. Americans don't like to support something called "socialism," but they
often support socialism by some other name.


In a message dated 6/13/03 7:04:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>>>"Well, the average American is not so pro-freedom as, say, Walter Williams,
>>>but considerably more so than the average Frenchman or German."

>>Really? How do you measure this?

>Well, we can start with the fact that in the first-round of a typical
>presidential election in France, 2/3 of the votes go to candidates so far
>to the Left they make Ralph Nader look moderate, and about 1/2 of these
>votes, or 1/3 of the total, go to out-and-out Marxists of one sort or
>another, candidates who are avowed Trotskyites, Stalinists, etc.  In U.S.
>presidential elections, no avowed socialist has *ever* garnered more than
>one or two percent of the vote.
>Marc Poitras

Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

Reply via email to