Re: Gore or Dubya?
>I know it ain't pretty reading on either side of the ledger, but is it >really conceivable Gore would be quite as horrific a prospect? > >Just wondering - he'll effectively be our president, too, after all. > >Cheers, >Rob. Society is divided into classes. The state is the executive committee of the ruling class. Gore or Bush take their marching orders from the ruling class. If the ruling class sees the need to get rid of aid to dependent children, they will give Clinton his marching orders. If it sees the need to implement affirmative action and end the pariah treatment of China, it will give Nixon his marching orders. The Reagan counter-revolution was not some kind of rightist coup. It conformed to the needs of the US ruling class during a period of increased global competition. For the US economy to take off, it had to suppress the working class--hence Reagan's assault on the airline controllers. It is often advisable for Marxists to give critical support to social democratic candidates, such as the Labor Party in the immediate post-WWII period in England. But there is a class line that should not be crossed when it comes to a party like the Democratic Party. This is the party of the bosses. Before the 1930s, endorsing bourgeois candidates was considered class treachery. But with the advent of Stalin's Popular Front and the rightward shift of the mass social democratic parties, this no longer was the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Gore or Dubya?
Louis Proyect wrote: > >there's the little matter of the > >superstructure sometimes preponderating in shaping particular events (as per > >that famous Bloch letter). > > Of course there are divisions in the ruling class. . . . Also there is the matter of distinguishing the superstructure (however you define that slippery term) from bird shit on the rooftop -- which is more or less what Gore and Bush represent. The most apparent difference between Kennedy and Nixon was that the former preferred haute cuisine and the latter hamburgers -- and then it turned out that Kennedy also preferred hamburgers. Kennedy also appointed one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices -- Whizzer White. Carrol
Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
Reckon you're making this out to be a little simpler than it is, Lou! The ruling class need not be particularly united on a host of particular policy issues (China's gonna present 'em with some pretty divisive stimuli, I reckon), there are often different ways to do someone's bidding (allocating cuts, for instance), and then there's the little matter of the superstructure sometimes preponderating in shaping particular events (as per that famous Bloch letter). I also think a lot of work had to be done to get America ready for Reaganism - the competitive pains of which you speak were, after all, more than evident to US capital nearly a decade before. Even the mighty US ruling class needs time, planning and patience to get big things (like the reversal of a political culture) done. And the more time it takes, the more luck you need (chaos, complexity, uncertainty etc). As things speed up, room for manoeuvre and time for planning/preparing the punters shrink, I reckon. Mebbe that'd be the forces of production falling out of kilter with the relations of production? Some of those qualifications are sorta Marxist in tone, no? And anyway, the lesser of two evils might come to mean anything in times where there is absolutely no other thing, good or evil, on the horizon. That said, I'm in search of views here, and am happy for my speculations to be convincingly contradicted. Cheers, Rob. >Society is divided into classes. The state is the executive committee of >the ruling class. Gore or Bush take their marching orders from the ruling >class. If the ruling class sees the need to get rid of aid to dependent >children, they will give Clinton his marching orders. If it sees the need >to implement affirmative action and end the pariah treatment of China, it >will give Nixon his marching orders. The Reagan counter-revolution was not >some kind of rightist coup. It conformed to the needs of the US ruling >class during a period of increased global competition. For the US economy >to take off, it had to suppress the working class--hence Reagan's assault >on the airline controllers. > >It is often advisable for Marxists to give critical support to social >democratic candidates, such as the Labor Party in the immediate post-WWII >period in England. But there is a class line that should not be crossed >when it comes to a party like the Democratic Party. This is the party of >the bosses. Before the 1930s, endorsing bourgeois candidates was considered >class treachery. But with the advent of Stalin's Popular Front and the >rightward shift of the mass social democratic parties, this no longer was >the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to >facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. > >Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. > >Louis Proyect > >(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org) >
Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
Carrol Cox wrote: >Also there is the matter of distinguishing the superstructure (however >you define that slippery term) from bird shit on the rooftop -- which >is more or less what Gore and Bush represent. The most apparent >difference between Kennedy and Nixon was that the former preferred >haute cuisine and the latter hamburgers -- and then it turned out that >Kennedy also preferred hamburgers. Kennedy also appointed one >of the more conservative Supreme Court justices -- Whizzer White. The only thing you can say for JFK is what Garry Wills said in Nixon Agonistes. During the 1950s, people said "It's all Ike. If only we can get a Democrat in there, everything will be better." They did, but everything still sucked, which is Wills's explanation for why things exploded in the 60s. I'm wondering if the upsurge in radicalism in the U.S. in the last several years is the result of a similar mechanism. Doug
Re: Gore or Dubya? (fwd)
>the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to >facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. >Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. >Louis Proyect Very true. Actually, if one looks at the party politics of the pre-nazi germany, one can easily see that social democrats, the reformist left, were partially responsible for the rise of Hitler. Although social democrats were fully aware of the danger of Nazism, they preferred to go with the wind. Neumann, in _Behemoth_ goes into details of explaining the tension between social democrats and socialists before Hitler. When Hitler won perceivable number of seats in Reichtag, Rudolf Hilferding, a leading theoretician of social democracy and editor of the party gazette, wrote to the party saying that Hitler was not a big deal, and their major concern was to fight against communists and to prevent the spread of communism.Isn't this stupidly unstrategic when Hitler was on the horse? Almost few months after Hilferding's bold speech, Hitler took the power from the president. Neumann offers a counterfactual reading of history and epxlains why his counterfactual could not have worked under specific circumstances, looking at both the likelihood and limitations of a certain occurance (similar to Gramsci, but he was not a Marxist strictly speaking, of course, although leftish).What could have happened if social democrats had gone to a united front with communists (asuming that they would both constitute a majority in Reichtag, and oust Hitler)? N argues that this scenario although perceivable was still unlikely. Social democrats did not want to sacrifice the Weimar Constitution of which they were the architects, but they sacrificed the whole Germany and Jew people.It was a serious tactical mistakeMaybe, communists could have been more tactical too, and sacrificied a litle bit of Stalinism... Mine
Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
> The most apparent > difference between Kennedy and Nixon was that the former preferred > haute cuisine and the latter hamburgers -- and then it turned out that > Kennedy also preferred hamburgers. Kennedy also appointed one > of the more conservative Supreme Court justices -- Whizzer White. > Carrol WW, only college All-American & professional football player to serve on Supreme Court... In contrast to alleged Kennedy progressivism, appointment of White was example of Kennedy pragmatism. Much as JFK's civil rights rhetoric was offset by tepid legislative proposals & timid efforts *and* by appointment of bigots to lower federal courts in South (admittedly, tradition of senatorial courtesy was factor in such appointments). As last member of Warren Court still on bench when he left in 1993, White offered little in way of continuity to earlier period. Supreme Court Database Project scored him about 33% liberal on civil liberties 50% on economics, 15% on criminal rights, and 40% on civil rights in non-unanimous decisions during his Court tenure and indicates that he became more conservative over years. White may be remembered for dissents in Miranda, Roe, and Buckley cases (latter, a liberal one, I guess, likely stemmed from his fund-raiser role in 1960 JFK campaign) and for majority opinion in Bowers v Hardwick upholding Georgia sodomy law (5-4 decision turned on Lewis Powell changing his mind, a change he claimed to regret after leaving court). WW would probably like to be remembered as consistent advocate of 'judicial restraint.' Michael Hoover
Re: Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
Rob wrote: >Reckon you're making this out to be a little simpler than it is, Lou! The >ruling class need not be particularly united on a host of particular policy >issues (China's gonna present 'em with some pretty divisive stimuli, I >reckon), there are often different ways to do someone's bidding (allocating >cuts, for instance), and then there's the little matter of the >superstructure sometimes preponderating in shaping particular events (as per >that famous Bloch letter). Of course there are divisions in the ruling class. In Germany the fraction that was based on heavy industry, like the Krupps, tended to support ultranationalists and then Nazis because the heavy investment in fixed capital was highly vulnerable to strikes, etc. The fraction that was based on light industry, retail, real estate and finance tended to back liberal or social democratic candidates. The problem is that this fraction had no commitment to defeating Hitler in the final analysis because when push came to shove, it preferred Nazism to proletarian revolution. So by tailing after the "lesser evil", you pave the way for fascism. That is history's lesson. The way to drive back rightist assaults is found in the Seattle protests, independent candidacies like McReynolds or Nader, etc. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: Re: Gore or Dubya? (fwd)
> >the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to >>facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. > >>Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. > >>Louis Proyect > >Very true. Actually, if one looks at the party politics of the pre-nazi >germany, one can easily see that social democrats, the reformist left, >were partially responsible for the rise of Hitler. Although social >democrats were fully aware of the danger of Nazism, they preferred to go with the wind... Didn't Thaelmann confidently welcome the fall of Weimar and the accession to power of Hitler, saying that in six months the masses will turn to us? Most others see the social democrats as playing a positive role in trying to preserve the constitutional Weimar government against both the Nazis and the Communists, each of which thought that *they* would pick up the pieces when Weimar fell. I didn't know there were any supporters of the policies of the Comintern's "Third Period" still around; I thought they had all been purged during the "Popular Front" period... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Gore or Dubya? (fwd)
My reading of Neumann is that both Thaelmann and Hilferding refused to go to a coalition. It was a strategic mistake on both parts, especially when Hitler lost some seats in *second* Reichtag elections, and was in a relatively weaker position to be ousted by a united majority. it did not happen that way due to domestic and international circumstanes (Neumann lists them one by one). From my own perspective, it seems that if Hilferding was not so concerned with proctecting the Weimar constitution and accepted a coalition with communists, the course of the events might have been different. Counterfactually speaking, if coalition had happened, Germany could have entered a socialist phase rather than retrogressing into fascism. So you have to choose between either sacrifiying the weimar const or accepting fascism. From a democratic point of view, I would have chosen the first rather than allowing the fascists to make use of the Weimar Constitution, as Hilferding did. In the mean time, of course, communists should have not simply expected the "masses" to turn to them, or seen fascism as the highest stage of capitalism--something to be mechanistically superseded. Brilliant Gramsci reminds this mistake to us when he says that socialism was passified in Italy due to idealistic beleif in the unilinear conception of history. Mine > >the case. Essentially, the "lesser evil" strategy which helped to >>facilitate Hitler's rise to power became central to the reformist left. > >>Of course, all of this is immaterial to non-Marxists. > >>Louis Proyect > >Very true. Actually, if one looks at the party politics of the pre-nazi >germany, one can easily see that social democrats, the reformist left, >were partially responsible for the rise of Hitler. Although social >democrats were fully aware of the danger of Nazism, they preferred to go with the wind... >Didn't Thaelmann confidently welcome the fall of Weimar and the accession to power of Hitler, saying that in six months the masses will turn to us? Most others see the social democrats as playing a positive role in trying to preserve the constitutional Weimar government against both the Nazis and the Communists, each of which thought that *they* would pick up the pieces when Weimar fell. >I didn't know there were any supporters of the policies of the Comintern's "Third Period" still around; I thought they had all been purged during the "Popular Front" period... >Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
At 10:17 AM 05/27/2000 -0400, you wrote: > > The most apparent > > difference between Kennedy and Nixon was that the former preferred > > haute cuisine and the latter hamburgers -- and then it turned out that > > Kennedy also preferred hamburgers. Kennedy also appointed one > > of the more conservative Supreme Court justices -- Whizzer White. of course, when the President appoints someone to the Supremes, he or she doesn't always get what she wants, since the appointee sometimes changes spots. Was it Justice Black who was in the KKK but turned out to be a stalwart liberal, especially on civil rights? Of course, Earl Warren was a Republican (and appointed by one). (Though of course, after the Truman-McCarthy era, Democrats actually stood for something (a watered-down New Dealism) and most GOPsters aimed to moderate their fervor.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
And Harry Blackmun, author of Roe v. Wade, was appointed by Nixon. The most liberal member of the current court is probably Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, I believe. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, May 27, 2000 10:57 AM Subject: [PEN-L:19673] Re: Re: Re: Gore or Dubya? >At 10:17 AM 05/27/2000 -0400, you wrote: >> > The most apparent >> > difference between Kennedy and Nixon was that the former preferred >> > haute cuisine and the latter hamburgers -- and then it turned out that >> > Kennedy also preferred hamburgers. Kennedy also appointed one >> > of the more conservative Supreme Court justices -- Whizzer White. > >of course, when the President appoints someone to the Supremes, he or she >doesn't always get what she wants, since the appointee sometimes changes >spots. Was it Justice Black who was in the KKK but turned out to be a >stalwart liberal, especially on civil rights? Of course, Earl Warren was a >Republican (and appointed by one). (Though of course, after the >Truman-McCarthy era, Democrats actually stood for something (a watered-down >New Dealism) and most GOPsters aimed to moderate their fervor.) > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine >"Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler. > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
In a message dated 5/27/00 10:57:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Was it Justice Black who was in the KKK but turned out to be a stalwart liberal, especially on civil rights? >> Yes. Though he was appointed as a progressive populist type, which he was in the Senate, and was never a "real" Klansman, a racist that is. He joined to advance his political career in Alabama in the 1920s, and quit when he could not stomach it. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gore or Dubya?
> of course, when the President appoints someone to the Supremes, he or she > doesn't always get what she wants, since the appointee sometimes changes > spots. Was it Justice Black who was in the KKK but turned out to be a > stalwart liberal, especially on civil rights? Of course, Earl Warren was a > Republican (and appointed by one). (Though of course, after the > Truman-McCarthy era, Democrats actually stood for something (a watered-down > New Dealism) and most GOPsters aimed to moderate their fervor.) > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine Yes, Black (from Alabama) had been Kluxer and some northern Dem senators opposed his 1937 nomination despite his support for New Deal as member of Senate. Former Klan membership probably helped him with southern Dem senators skeptical of him for being New Dealer. FDR's concern was acceptable replacement for Willis Van Devanter who prez hated for being part of conservative bloc that almost always voted against New Deal in cases before the Court. Black wrote majority opinion in 1944 Korematsu case in which Court endorsed government relocation of Japanese-Americans during WW2. He issued dissent in 1951 Dennis case in which Court supported government anti-communist policies. If memory serves, Eisenhower called Warren and William Brennan appt's to Supreme Court biggest mistakes of his presidency.Michael Hoover
