a preliminary: apologies accepted! (ellipsis: there was nothing here but spinning wheels.)
> As to idealism and materialism, as Marx put it in "Intro to Critique > of Hegel's Philosophy of Right", when an idea grips masses, it becomes > a material force. Reagan, not Volcker, was the main propaganidizer who > got Reaganite ideas ( largely repudiation of the criticisms of > American racism and imperialism from the movements of the 60's and > 70's) to grip American masses and become a material force. That's why > this era is better termed Reaganism. As I've said before, I don't think that the period should be named after anyone. A reverse cult of personality makes no sense at all. But if you want to call the era by _any name_, including "eggplantism," be my guest. It's a free country, after all. No-one says that all analyses have to be deep. History isn't made by the "masses" alone, so that propaganda from the elite doesn't have to play a major role. The fact is that in the era after the Bretton Woods fixed exchange-rate system, the Federal Reserve had much more power over the U.S. economy than under BW. That meant that a push by organized finance capital to oust William Miller and to replace him with Paul Volcker meant not only a change in the official ideology of the Fed but also policy changes which profoundly changed the US economy (_without_ mobilizing the "masses"). Crucially, the high interest rate/high dollar exchange rate policies of the Fed during the early 1980s destroyed the market for US exporters and import-competing businesses, something that they never completely recovered from. Much of US manufacturing bit the dust, the Industrial Heartland became the Rust Belt, and a major chunk of US organized labor went perflooey. Ideology played a role here, though not a big one: Volcker publicly embraced MF's "Monetarism" (though many economists deny that he did so in practice). This helped people in financial markets believe that he "meant business" in his war against inflation and thus may have strengthened his effort. Of course, the "masses" did play a role, helping to passively legitimate the Volcker-led policy. A lot of people thought that the stagflation of the late 1970s was a bad thing, so that any action to end it was okay with them (at least at first). Organized labor was, as usual, compromised and suffering from a long-term decline. Union leaders did not like the increased militancy of the rank and file during the 1970s and (as usual) were willing to strike a deal with management. To a large extent, the vast majority of people (including union leaders) did not understand what a monetary policy-driven austerity program was and what its impact would be. Besides, it was out of their control. BTW, I think that the extent to which the ideology of "Reaganism" gripped the "masses" has been much exaggerated by the official media. The process of "gripping" took a long time. To a large extent, (mostly white male) working people turned to Reagan-type nostrums (Limbaugher cheese, etc.) only after their unions were undermined or atomized. Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" has some good info on this. CB: > I couldn't have thought of a better metaphor myself. Metaphors are my game. However, I should have written "the DP acts pretty passively, being perfectly willing to _turn_ tricks while backward and wearing high heels." To compare the DP to Ginger Rogers is an insult to her. > Clinton got > shoved to the right by the vote that created the Gingrich takeover. > Then you had the rightwing Judge Starr tailing Clinton. Clinton wasn't a leftist to begin with. Look at NAFTA. He was more of a policy wonk, a wheeler-dealer, allied from the start with various Arkansas business interests, and primed to be pushed even further to the right. With the the countervailing power of the labor movement and most other left-leaning movements so weak and/or passive, Clinton almost immediately rushed to kiss up to the bond market. Of course, he would never please the capitalists and other right-wing forces _enough_, so even more pressure was put on him. And then he gave in more -- and his own personal failings created openings for attacks. DP leaders don't seem to understand that if you "cave" to the right-wing pressures, the right wingnuts just want more caving. me: > Crucially, the "left wing" is not the same as the DP, which is > basically a capitalist political party, but representing different > fractions of the capitalist class than does the GOP.[*] CB: > Exactly, the left-wing of the Democratic Party resists. There's > only one non-Democratic Party left-winger in Congress. The only way > to resist effectively is in Congress or the left of a President's > administration. Are you referring to the fund-raising machines sometimes called "Senators" and "Representatives"? > The DP , contradictorily , represents sections of capital and labor as > well. The Democratic Party is characterized by being contradictory or > two-faced. It's definitely two-faced. It doesn't represent organized labor except to the extent that the latter keeps its independence and pushes the politicians toward pro-labor positions. If the union leaders just support the politicians and don't criticize them or act independently from them on the political level, they become passive adjuncts to the DP. They are are then taken for granted: the politicians say "if these labor people are going to support us no matter what, why cater to them?" Alas, most of US organized labor's leadership surrendered its independence long ago, by supporting the Cold War so wholeheartedly and by kicking commies of various stripes (who were typically more militant than the leadership) out. > CB: Conyers and Kucinich , for example, are leftwing tendencies of the > DP that come from inside the DP itself. There are leftwingers in the > DP. these folks are clearly a minority within the DP and hardly justify blanket support for the DP. We could just as well justify support for the Socialist party by pointing to Bernie Sanders. > LBJ is a good example of the special contraditoriness of the > Democratic Party. He prosecuted the war , yet won the Civil Rights > Act, Great Society and War on Poverty programs. He was right and left > at the same time. the left part comes from pressure by the Civil Rights movement, without which LBJ would have been simply a dishonest and paternalistic bastard. me: > Part of the "left wing" is in the DP base (and some not). It's not the > leadership, who are pretty busy studying the results of focus groups > and polls, sucking up to the moneyed to get campaign contributions, > wheeling and dealing to find compromises that might look good in > public but represent deals among business groups (and raise more > funds). Alas, the part of the "left wing" that's in the DP weakens its > case by catering to that leadership, losing its independence of > thought and action, and apologizing for the DP. CB: > ... Weakens its case to whom ? There's not much choice but to _follow_ > the leadership. The DP ( and RP) has democratic centralism. to those who don't like the way things are going in this country. The DP does _not_ have "democratic centralism" (which, for the uninitiated, means control of the organization by a small central committee with public dissent by the rank and file being against the rules, which is hardly democratic). The DP has nothing like the democratic centralism of the GOP, sects like the CP, and corporations. DP politicians are an unruly bunch, even in public, often disagreeing with each other and their leaderships. A DP politician recently told Obama to "shove it." me: > I heard a part of an interesting piece about how the DP lacks a > backbone on NPR's "This American Life," about how it is totally > unwilling or constitutionally unable to talk back to business. For > example, why didn't Obama respond to the "right-wing" attack on his > health insurance reform as involving "death panels" by pointing to the > _real_ death panels of private insurance companies? As far as I heard, > the story didn't have an answer. My answer: Obama was deliberately > allied with the insurance industry at that point. In general, the DP > doesn't talk back to business because it represents part of the > business community. > CB: > If you are saying the O admin tried to sabotage its own > healthcare` legislation , naww. I have an email somewhere with O admin > responses to the death panel lies. I didn't say anything about sabotage. He _started_ with the idea that any health care change would have to involve support from the insurance industry and similar interest groups. > At any rate, the DP talks out of both sides of its mouth for business > and for labor. and that's why you support them? -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
