Michael Hoover wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/09/05 1:55 PM >>>
Myth of Benevolent Roosevelt Democrats:
The Real Deal on the "New Deal"
by Andrew Pollack
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina some Democratic Party politicians and
even conservative newspapers like the New York Daily News were calling for
a "new 'New Deal'" to deal with the destruction wrought, and with the
broader social problems exposed in its wake.
<<<<<>>>>>
for life of me, i can never undertstand those who call for 'new' _____ (fill
in blank), in this case, 'new new deal'...
Because they can't think of anything else?
Here's some of what I said at the CUNY grad center panel on David
Harvey's latest on Oct 31 (full version coming in LBO #111, in prep):
Both in this book and in The New Imperialism, David calls for some
kind of New New Deal, as if we could somehow recover the world
of...well I'm not sure what. 1978? 1958? 1938? The New Deal happened
in this country because the economy had collapsed and the USSR
provided an alternative model of how to organize an economy. The New
Deal was a way for capital to give a little in order to preserve a
lot. What exists in the present situation that offers even a remote
promise of a re-run? Capitalism is triumphant and, aside from Hugo
Chavez' proclamation of a 21st century socialism, we're largely
incapable of even imagining a serious alternative. And I'd say that
David's invocation of the New Deal is symptomatic of our current
political impoverishment: we can't do much more than hope for a
reincarnation of a reformist movement from 70 years ago. Until we
can plausibly articulate something more substantial than that, we're
bound to lose. And we can't, at least not right now. With no sign of
a serious systemic threat, there's just no reason for the ruling
class to accept even a mild reformist agenda.
