On 2011-08-04, at 7:44 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > On 8/4/11 7:39 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: >> >> This sounds like Charles B's line. He and others have also argued >> there is no basis for vehement criticism of the the Obama >> administration since it is constrained by objective forces beyond its >> control, and has had no other options within the framework of US >> capitalism other than to opt for the policies which it has chosen. > > Well, I believe that objective forces explain the rise of Stalin but I > have as much use for him as I do for Obama.
Objective conditions explain the appearance of social forces, and while the environment place serious constraints on what is possible, it doesn't determine the full range of political options available within that context. The Left and Right oppositions, for example, did not justify Stalin's program of forced industrialization and collectivization, the Yezhovschina and purges of old Bolsheviks, the Third Period and Popular Front policies, the short-lived alliance with fascism etc. as the inevitable consequence of historical necessity and the global context, as the only course open to the Soviets in light of the society's economic and cultural backwardness and the international isolation of the USSR. It's revealing, however, that this was precisely the justification for such policies which both the willing and unwitting apologists for Stalinism rolled out to allay the misgivings of rank and file Communists and Soviet sympathizers. By the same token, the shift to the right in American politics and in the Democratic party is ultimately traceable to the impact on the the once powerful industrial unions of technological change and the evolution of the capitalist world economy. Variations on this "objective reality" are typically offered as the reason for the Obama administration's wholesale failure to pursue even the most modest systemic reforms described in my previous post. The article by Corey Robin giving primacy to the global context lends support to this interpretation. But the context only limits the range of options available to the US ruling class, it does not eliminate them. If it did, it we would have no explanation for the sharp divisions over economic and social policy which continue to manifest themselves between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, and within both parties. The administration did have a choice; it could have aligned itself with the Keynesian wing of the rul! ing class - whose emphasis on reviving demand corresponded to the immediate needs of the US working class - instead of wooing its moderate Republican wing and tailoring its policies to them. Carrol Cox frequently likes to remind us how sophisticated the Obama administration has been in pursuing its own and ruling class interests, assuming erroneously that classes, including the dominant one, are politically monolithic. In fact, this clever group of politicians has consistently made the wrong choices, both in relation to the economic recovery and its own political fortunes. There's no conflict between historical materialism and placing responsibility where it properly belongs. I know we don't have any disagreement on this point. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
