On 11/9/05, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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. >
-------------------------- Robyn Eckersly? Carol Gould? There's stuff 'out there' being imagined; operationalizing the medium and fine grain without circular firing squads -a decidedly male problem, note the use of the term *threat* above- is just one of the myriad issues that would follow upon the congealing of contemporary social movements.
