raghu wrote: > I don't buy this line of reasoning. A welfare state is in the > long-term interests of the elites. Are you going to oppose a robust > welfare state on that basis? ...
Even if a robust welfare state is in the long-term interests of the elites [capitalist elites, I presume], I wouldn't support it if it came totally from above. It would be totally aimed at serving the elites, just as with Dubya's prescription insurance plan. The valuable stuff doesn't come from elites, it comes from everyday working people fighting to attain their goals. If there were more of a mass movement for single-payer health insurance, the watered-down and compromised version that Obama and Congress would end up passing would be significantly better than the one that the Senate passed in the real world. Looking at the US, it sure looks as if the warfare-welfare state that prevailed after World War II helped profit rates (and thus the elites), at least up to the end of the 1960s. But that came about not because the elites planned it but because of Cold War competition -- for the warfare state (reinforced by the power of the military-industrial complex) -- and because of the labor movement and popular unrest during the 1930s -- for the welfare state. If the popular unrest and labor movement had been even weaker, I can imagine that a 1960s-type prosperity (for the elites) could have happened based on the warfare state alone. The elites "do the right thing" due to pressure, not because of enlightened leaders. > So what if something progressive happens to be in the long-term > interests of the elites? I say, good for them, lets have more of the > same. Contrary to what raghu says here, I wasn't rejecting anything on the basis of it serving the the long-term interests of the [capitalist] elites alone. Rather, I was saying that seeing anything that serves the long-term interests of of the elites as "progressive" is denaturing and undermining the meaning of that word. Instead of saying "the proposed Volcker reforms are 'progressive'," why not say "the proposed Volcker reforms would stabilize the financial sector and contribute to getting rid of 'too big to fail' policies and the like"? Why not say "the proposed Volcker reforms are good from my perspective"? Of course, I don't have the same liberal world-view that raghu has: I see "progressive" as involving empowering working people. > As to what is 'progressive', I'd use a very simple definition for this > conversation that I think should be completely non-controversial: > anything that decreases the powers and profits of financiers is > progressive. Even if it helps the power and profits of cocaine dealers? In a serious discussion, no political definitions are self-evident and immune to controversy. Let's have a moratorium on the word "progressive." -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
