me: > 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) That's understandable, but if you want to communicate with people, it's good to try. If you don't want to communicate with others, that's fine with me. me: > 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. It's better for people to actual have knowledge about policies and their interests and principles instead of worrying about some 2nd rate actor who died awhile back. People aren't hurt by the George Washington myth, either. Just because people revere Washington doesn't mean that they think that slavery is okay. me: > 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:> 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, This is an example of philosophical and historical idealism. I disagree with that way of thinking. CB had said: >> 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. ?... me: > _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 ? I don't think those are movements toward socialism as much as toward _social democracy_ (which, especially compared to what we have now, is a _good_ thing). What moves any society toward socialism [*] is not the kind of technocratic/top-down policies associated with (say) the War on Poverty/Great Society as much as a mass movement for socialism (consisting of workers and other dominated groups). Of course, movements toward socialism are few and far between: in rich countries, they usually produce only social democracy (a temporary compromise, however worthy it may be). me: > 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. Right (and I've made that point so many times that's it's boring). But the form that the Great Society took was a top-down, paternalistic, and controlling one that would fit with capitalist laws and norms, while demobilizing the grass-roots of the mass movements and sometimes setting different parts against each other. It's like Otto von Bismarck, who responded to the socialist movement in Germany by instituting a top-down/bureaucratic social-insurance system. me: > 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. good: a point of agreement. But then there's the _non sequitur_ that follows: > 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. Again, even though Walker may love Ronald Reagan, what makes him a reactionary pig is the movement and especially the money that backs him. I've heard various news sources citing RR as being in favor of the New Deal (such things as public works to create jobs as in the 1930s, within limits), so that if the pressure on Walker were different, he would likely dredge up those pro-New Deal statements from RR (if he's truly an RR-lover). Or he would not mention RR and justify his policies in terms of how wonderful George W. Bush was. Or he could interpret some of RR's anti-New Deal statements in a more rational or moderate way. Even the most dogmatic of right-wing politicians bends to the winds of political pressure, especially when they are backed by money-power: if they can't do so, they give up on being politicians (often without choosing to do so) and become pamphleteers, etc. I had written: >> 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. me: > That's hardly a reason to let Carter and the DP off the hook while > distorting history in the process. it's also a totally valid point, so it's worth bringing up when someone uses Volcker's policies to justify anti-Reaganism. CB now writes: > 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. "Ultra leftism" is defined relative to the Party Line, right? We'll I don't have either a Party or a Party Line, so that the term is meaningless to me; it's just an emotion-laden epithet. In essence, it says "I don't like your position" without saying why. (I'd bet, BTW, that some sectarians consider OWS to be "ultra left." In a different setting, the leadership of the CP of Cuba considered Castro's insurgency before 1950 to be "ultra left." Then the Line changed. I'd be that being openly hostile toward Hitler was dubbed "ultra leftist" (because of the Hitler/Stalin pact) until Hitler attacked the USSR. What's "ultra left" one day can be acceptable the next. It depends on what the Central Committee decides the Line should be.) Anyway, no politician can put a "Reaganite" program into practice if there's a strong opposition. The DP has not provided any strong opposition to "Reaganism" in recent decades. They need their campaign contributions too much, so they accept most of this "Reaganism," trying to make it softer so that they don't get too many complaints from liberals (who usually give up, since the DP is the "lesser of two evils"). That's why, for example, Obama decided not to push for abolishing the Bush tax cuts until after the 2010 election; it's why he appointed people like Summers and Geithner as his economics experts. Etc. me: > 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. My experience is that the DP apparatchiks don't like that approach. Thus, they try to keep commies and anarchists (not to mention "ultra-leftists") out. So for a leftist who works within the DP, it's a matter of pretending to be something that isn't true. I think it's better to be honest. > 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. it's popular movements that pushed the governor to act that way. The autoworkers were popular with a significant part of Michigan's electorate. Also, there were civil libertarians (etc.) who thought that machine-gunning sit-down strikers was poor form. > 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. Yes, and he went along with (i.e., supported) COINTELPRO, which was aimed at weakening and destroying the grass-roots forces that pushed LBJ to institute "Great Society" programs.[**] He also fought a bloody imperialist war against Vietnam, in case you've forgotten. CB had written: >> Well yeah. If one is a rightwinger, Reagan is great. ?... me: > 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. In other words, it's movements like OWS that can make an opportunistic politician (oops, that's redundant) like Obama to stop praising Reagan. I agree. CB had written: >> 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. ?... me: > 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 .... 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. I use the term "Reaganism" with someone who explicitly embraced it (or actively rejected it), though my point would be to argue against the _principles_ that are summarized by the term. Among leftists, it's a snare and delusion that distorts reality and prevents clear-headed thinking. We need clear thinking badly, since despite OWS, the Right is still winning most of the time. > 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.... if there was "Reaganism before Reagan" then the term "Reaganism" doesn't mean very much. Was Goldwater a Reaganite? Calvin Coolidge? Grover Cleveland? > 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. This is another example of idealist thinking. We can describe the Michigan Teabaggers as "Reaganite," but that hardly explains why they embrace this "Reaganism" with such a vengeance that they go far beyond Reagan (and add to the meaningless of the term "Reaganism"). Instead, we should "follow the money" and look at the _social forces_ behind the Teabaggers. And one thing we have to be conscious of is the fact that they may be going too far even from their own point of view, undermining any of the legitimacy they may have outside of their hard core. -- Jim Devine / "In an ugly and unhappy world the richest man can purchase nothing but ugliness and unhappiness." -- George Bernard Shaw [*] I'm not referring to the bureaucratic socialism (BS) of the now-defunct USSR but instead to democratic socialism (or _real_ socialism). [**] for those who don't remember, here's something from the Wikipedia: >>COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of >>covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal >>Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, >>discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations. >> COINTELPRO tactics included discrediting targets through psychological >> warfare, planting false reports in the media, smearing through forged >> letters, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, illegal violence and >> assassination. Covert operations under COINTELPRO took place between 1956 >> and 1971; however, the FBI has used covert operations against domestic >> political groups since its inception. The FBI's stated motivation at the >> time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining >> the existing social and political order." >> FBI records show that 85% of COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and >> individuals that the FBI deemed "subversive," including communist and >> socialist organizations; organizations and individuals associated with the >> civil rights movement, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others >> associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National >> Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Congress of >> Racial Equality and other civil rights organizations; black nationalist >> groups; the American Indian Movement; a broad range of organizations labeled >> "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen; >> almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, as well as individual student >> demonstrators with no group affiliation; the National Lawyers Guild; >> organizations and individuals associated with the women's rights movement; >> nationalist groups such as those seeking independence for Puerto Rico, >> United Ireland, and Cuban exile movements including Orlando Bosch's Cuban >> Power and the Cuban Nationalist Movement; and additional notable Americans, >> such as Albert Einstein (who was a member of several civil rights groups). >> The remaining 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and >> subvert "white hate groups," including the Ku Klux Klan and the National >> States' Rights Party. << _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
