Louis Proyect writes:
Michael Perelman wrote:
Isn't this a common pattern, that the left falls (not really wins) into
office once
the right model becomes exhausted, leaving the purported left to harm the
masses in
ways that the right is reluctant to do.
I would look at it a different way. Since the late 1970s, American
capitalism has had a need to attack wages, working conditions, the
social safety net, etc. in order to maintain its dominance in the world
market. Every single president, either Democrat or Republican, has been
on board for this agenda. This will remain true. The only way to defend
wages, working conditions and the social safety net is the same way as
during the 1930s: militant mass action. The sole purpose of the
Democratic Party is to preempt such action by promising pie in the sky.
================================
Their campaign promises fall well short of "pie in the sky". Large parts of
the DP base are often frustrated with the excessive caution shown by their
leaders, who know that at day's end they will have to appeal to a broader
electoral constituency and that, if they are successful, they will have to
answer to the corporations and the markets. So, if anything, the
DLC-schooled leaders try to dampen rather than raise expectations. It is
only in a close race like the present one that this discipline breaks down
and the candidates try to outbid each other as messengers of "change".
I think the left may underestimate how many working people have learned to
be skeptical of campaign promises. Working people are not gullible. What
brings the most politically conscious workers over to the Democrats and
social democratic parties elsewhere is that their unions and the other
representative groups they belong to (of women, blacks, Hispanics,
environmentalists, etc.) are able to persuade them that the Republicans
would be more damaging to their interests.
It is not difficult to persuade them since it conforms to their own
experience. Even on those occasions when their leaders tell them concessions
are necessary, most working people will go along for the same reason: they
look to a liberal or social democratic government to cut a deal with the
capitalists, who themselves will often accept half a loaf when they perceive
themselves unable to secure the concessions through more costly
confrontations. Changes to Social Security, for example, will have a better
chance of getting through under a Democratic administration, but will be
less sweeping than those proposed by the Republicans which failed to get off
the ground.
If the conditions for mass action as in the 30s reappear, then there will be
mass action. If there is no mass action today, it is because the conditions
are not the same. While the Democratic leaders generally (but not always)
discourage mass action, it is a real misunderstanding to think they can
switch the process on and off like a tap. Responsibility for their behaviour
in good times and bad belongs to the people themselves, and corresponds to
what they are prepared to do and think is necessary in the circumstances.
