Louis Proyect wrote: >> Paul Street's analysis might be nothing new, but there are lots of >> interesting statistics to support the notion that the masses are >> to the left of the Democratic Party leaders.
Carrol Cox wrote: > No doubt. But that doesn't establish that there is anything wrong with > the Democrats. After all, the fundamental responsibility of that party > is to control, blunt, absorb such sentiments. That's your interpretation of the DP's fundamental responsibility. It's true that that's what the DP _does_ much or most of the time, but that's different from its "responsibility." The idea that the DP has this responsibility is to say that it has some sort of purpose beyond its stated one.[*] To posit this kind of gap between the actual purpose and the ostensible one involves teleology. This is what sociologists call the functionalist fallacy. Just as the famous functionalist Talcott Parsons assigned purposes or functions to various institutions (such as MDs wearing white coats) assuming that they all meshed together in order to maintain social stability and the like (smoothing the inherent tensions of the doctor-patient relationship), this analysis says that the DP's purpose is the same kind of thing. But to post-Parsons sociologists the fallacy here is that there's no specification of the social _mechanisms_ that give the DP this "purpose," i.e., that insures that it actually does serve this function. The DP may have multiple purposes or no purpose at all. Many people -- especially DP members -- see it as a rough coalition of different interest groups that's seeking unity, rather than having a specific goal (even the stated one). If it has a purpose, in this view, it would be to aggregate interests and to solidify the coalition. On the other hand, GOPsters these days see it as having the hidden purpose of promoting socialism. I would emphasize the mechanisms and instead of saying that the DP has some "purpose" that's hidden from view (as in some kind of conspiracy theory), I'd say that the actual _effect_ of that party is different from its ostensible purpose. (There's a gap between theory and practice.) It's the structure of domination that characterizes capitalism, the more concrete institutions of the US at this point in history (such as its Constitution and various laws establishing the 2-party system), the power of opposition forces outside of the electoral system, etc. that all combine to cause the DP to have an effect (stabilizing capitalism, etc.) that differs from its officially-stated purpose. Among other things, that steers us away from blaming the DP too much: it's more of a product of history than a producer of it. This stuff is important because there are a large number of people who do not automatically agree that the DP helps stabilize capitalism. In talking to them, it's best not to presume too much. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. [*] FWIW, according to the DP itself, its purpose is: >... to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, open, honest and accountable government, and securing our nation while protecting our civil rights and liberties.< from http://www.democrats.org/a/party/stand.html. The way this is stated (e.g., "strong economic growth") reflects the currently dominant ideology. Interestingly, there's no mention above of the environmental or social impacts of "strong economic growth," which is usually stated in terms of real GDP (output sold through the market). _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
