If you're going to post articles you should explain their significance. I thought you always posted articles you agree with.
^^^^^^ CB: I'm not looking to u to supervise my posting (giggles) ^^^^ In any event, I don't see how the TP will change its mind about its basic politics, even if they give up on Reagan. ^^^^^^ CB: There r hardcore Tea Partiers and there are soft"? people influenced by its rhetoric who can be dissuaded of its ideology. There are young people just coming to maturity who can be convinced that contrary to the main narrative, Reagan was actually "bad" ,not "good". The battle of ideas goes on , and articles like this can help to reverse the brainwashing of the last 30 years. ^^^^^" They've got lots of other heroes. And they get lots of money from the Koch brothers and a whole passel of other right-wing millionaires. There have been a lot of reactionary petty-bourgeois movement in the past that didn't have Reagan as an icon, so the TP can survive without him. (In addition, of course, they don't give a damn about facts.) ^^^^^^ CB: No, I think without Reagan the TP is done. Their central themes:anti-unions, anti-government, anti-welfare , anti-Tax -and-Spend Liberals as code language for , Negro-loving white politicians, cutting taxes on the rich as a gambit to budget hawkism to cut New Deal and War on Poverty/Great Society programs, fetishizing public ignorance and stupidity in leaders, > Actually, Marx's direct statement was that Big Men could slow or speed > the pace of the rev, but not make it or thwart it completely. That' > exactly what Big Man Reagan did. He slowed movement toward socialism > by initiating counter-reforms and especially a counter-reform > ideology. ?... _What_ "movement toward socialism" did the US have in 1979? is there some inexorable trend toward socialism that was hidden from sight at the time, one that involved no actual organization or ideology or popular action? ^^^^^^^ CB: I'd say the reason socialists support and defend the New Deal, civil and human rights and War on Poverty/Great Society reforms is that they move in the direction of socialism; and strengthen the working class. That's why I support and defend them. Why do you support and defend them ? ^^^^^^ You can't have a "movement toward socialism" without some sort of popular movement. . ^^^^^ CB: The New Deal , Great Society/War on Poverty and Civil Rights reforms were won because of mass popular movements in the 30's and 60's. Change came from the bottom up, not the top down. ^^^^^^ I'd say that the resistible rise of RR was not only a matter of the strength of the "right" (as they started to unify around a neoliberal program) but also the weakness of the "left." Most of the popular movements of the 1960s (not to mention the popular movement of the 1930s & 40s, i.e., the labor movement) had peaked and were in sever decline by 1979. ^^^^^^ CB: Yes, There definitely was a counter-reform movement; it succeeded because, as you say , the left movements were in decline. Now we seem to have in the Immigrants' Rights mass demonstrations of several years ago, the Wisconsin/Ohio/Michigan ( notice Wisconsin Gov. Walker's specific conscious Reaganism and Reagan as his hero in the hoax phone call from a "Koch brother" ; the right is consciously and explicitly Reagnite)and other fightbacks against the Tea Party Reaganites and the Occupation a growing new movement of the working class which has potential to start to reverse the Reagan counter-reforms. The article I posted seems to be a new level of expression of anti-Reaganism. ^^^^ me: > BTW, it's unfair to blame Reagan for the 11% unemployment in 1982-3. > If you want to blame anyone, it would be Paul Volcker, who the DP > president Jimmy Carter named to be head of the Federal Reserve. RR's > tax cuts for the rich actually counteracted Volcker's tight monetary > policy when it came to the unemployment issue. CB; > Yea, the DP haters have mentioned that about twenty times over > the years here and on related lists. That's hardly a reason to let Carter and the DP off the hook while distorting history in the process. ^^^^^ CB: The fact is Carter didn't play nearly as big a role as Reagan in getting uhhhh Reaganism so widely accepted. The constant trying to claim that is just off. The effort to make the DP as important as the RP in establishing Reaganism is off, ultra-left error , as I've said many times before. The Tea Party or the Gingrich rightwing surge in 1994 consciously and clearly were continuing Reagan's thrust not Carter's. They were anti-Carter. ^^^^ BTW, I'm not a DP hater. I just think that it's a tremendous waste of time to put any faith in the DP or to "bore from within" to try to improve it. If you want to improve the DP _ignore it_ and fight for your own political goals, which will often be in conflict those of DP leaders. If you're successful to some degree -- as, for example, the OWS movement has been -- the DP will shift in your direction. If you give in and start catering to them, they'll absorb you. If you keep on fighting for your goals and sticking to your principles (without the sectarian garbage of various "Marxist-Leninist" grouplets), you're more likely to change the DP than if you work for their candidates, etc. ^^^^^^ CB: I'd say the history of the New Deal , Great Society/War on Poverty and Civil Rights reforms indicates that the approach you describe is not the best. Those historical examples indicate that it is possible for movements of the 99% to achieve significant, socialist direction reforms through the DP. When it is not election time, protests and demonstrations. When it is election time, work for the candidates. No problem with doing both. It is especially possible with the Occupation which has revolutionized the protest form by demonstrating against the capitalists directly. Of course, for example , the autoworkers occupied a private company's plant in 1936. Key was that the Democratic Governor of Michigan did not send in national guard to clear the plant. Similarly, the Democratic President LBJ responded to the dozens of urban rebellions with a Kerner Commission report admitting white supremacy as a problem and with War on Poverty/Great Society programs. me: > Whether the Gypper was "horrible" or not depends on your perspective. > If you want there to be a neoliberal consensus among the ruling forces > in US and world society, RR was great. He cemented the coalition that > transformed US and world society, so that DP icons such as Bill > Clinton and Barack Obama went along with neoliberalism (and have > deepened it). CB: > Well yeah. If one is a rightwinger, Reagan is great. ?... is that why Obama has praised Reagan? ^^^^ CB: I'd say Obama is a centrist who knows that with the Reagan personality cult slopped over even to some centrists you can't get elected without praising him. You can't be an anti-Reaganite until we get about ten thousand more expressions from the 99% like the one that is the heading for this thread. ^^^^ CB: > Reaganism a better term than > neo-liberal, because Liberalism is associated with what he helped > bring down. Such code words as "tax and spend Liberals" code for > Negro-loving white politicians are central to the Reaganite ideology. > Anyway, because of the association in mass political discourse of > "Liberal" with FDR and LBJ, it is confusing to call Reagan an > initiator of neo-liberalism because Liberalism in the American sense > is. what he started the attack on. ?... Jim D: CB, you have a point there: neoliberalism is a term that only leftists and academics use. ^^^^^^ CB: Yes a main problem is that it is not a popular term. The vast majority of the 99% can cognize the personality of Reagan and then attach it to the demagogic anti-Big Government line ( Reagan expanded the government, especially military)., anti-tax and spend Liberals, anti-union. Part of the problem is that the average American thinks better in terms of personalities than abstract concepts. So, we have to go to where people are in their thinking and wage the battle. I don't think the whole struggle against Reaganism or even the main part is criticizing Reagan. But it is a way to get into people's thinking. We want a historical revisionist movement (but we won't call it that in mass rhetoric ; giggles). "Reaganism" is a rhetorical device. The problem with "Reaganism" is that the term totally ignores the power of big money and the kind of policies they've been pushing since even before Reagan. The "politics of the 1 percent" might be a better term. In any event, leftists should always make the point that the problem is _more than Reagan or Reaganism_. Focusing on one individual -- or catering to those who focus on one individual -- is silly. ^^^^^ CB: The beginning of Reaganism was before Reagan , but it was very small compared to what Reagan got going. Reagan's main, s contribution was swaying mass ideology and sentiment ,not as much the specific programs he got going. Reaganism is importantly at the state level, too. Michigan didn't get Reaganism until 1990 with Engler who slashed welfare and attacked Detroit's The Tea Party in Michigan is going very far, further than Reagan and Engler, but they are their logical extension of the initial thrust of Reagan and of course his ideas. It's pretty scary here in Michigan right now. Tea Party is vicious. ^^^^^^ [I'm still in shock. Rahm Emmanuel went to my high school.] ^^^^^^^ CB: Chicago, Chicago, its a wonderful town _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
