Re: Re: Re: Krugman Watch: the estate tax abolition (fwd)
Duly noting the existence of inequality is hardly socialist. It's unclear to me what I said that might have suggested otherwise. About American liberalism, the first useful distinction to be made is between the corporate/business-oriented and that of the more "mass" variety. The former pushes for social reforms to rationalize the marketplace, stabilize the political order, and socialize the costs of production. Usually, it takes these actions in response to upsurges of political organizing--some kind of pressure from below. In general, however, since Americans tend to be driven less by well-developed ideologies, demands for social reforms are more likely to treat the objects of reform as if they were discrete phenomena, readily separable from the functioning of the system as a whole. Sometimes, this has a useful PR dimension--obviously, it is easier to talk about Nike as the embodiment of sweatshop labor than it is to talk about sweatshop labor in the abstract. Nevertheless, the very need to hang the horrors of sweatshop labor on the behavior of one company is really only further confirmation of a particularly American political sensibility--practical, concrete, and less enamoured of large social-theoretical formulations. American liberalism of the `mass' variety, then, has a distinct political cast. Committed to social reform, but wary of impinging on the prerogatives of private enterprise, its pace is incremental, its outcomes exceedingly partial and fragmentary. Still, when it is disruptive enough, business liberalism may take it under its wing. Such alliances have been always been necessary for social reforms in the U.S. By the time business interests steward these reforms, however, private interests have been protected, and all that's left is the sound of one hand clapping. Joel Blau Chris Burford wrote: > At 00:50 16/06/00 -0400, you wrote: > > >People use "right" and "left" very arbitrarily sometimes. What does > >"right" mean in American politics? and how does "liberal" be left? > > > >Mine > > This is a major gap in left wing political culture between the USA and > Europe. My guess is that it comes from the severe repression of socialists > in the USA during the cold war. As a result left wing thinking in the USA > often has a libertarian flavour to it, which misses the point. At least > christian democrats in Europe believe in some sort of social accountability. > > >This column is the linear descendant of articles such as "The Rich, The > >Right, and The Facts," which nailed the right on growing inequality when > >Krugman wrote it for The American Prospect five or six years ago. But as > >always when he tilts liberal, one gets the feeling that the latent > >message--repositioning himself on the political spectrum as a balanced, > >objective observer--is as least as important as whatever he happens to > >arguing. > > > > >Joel Blau > > Well framed point about the jostling to appear as a "balanced objective > observer". These shifts are how we can detect movements in the underline > pattern of ideas, which ultimately are a reflection of the economic base, > but always interpreted by people who think they are balanced objective > observers. > > BTW nailing the right on growing inequality is also not a fully socialist > idea - it is merely the socialism of redistribution not the socialism of > social control of the means of production. > > Chris Burford > London
Re: Re: Re: Krugman Watch: the estate tax abolition (fwd)
At 07:54 AM 6/16/00 +0100, you wrote: >>People use "right" and "left" very arbitrarily sometimes. What does >>"right" mean in American politics? and how does "liberal" be left? >> >>Mine Chris writes: >This is a major gap in left wing political culture between the USA and >Europe. My guess is that it comes from the severe repression of socialists >in the USA during the cold war. As a result left wing thinking in the USA >often has a libertarian flavour to it, which misses the point. At least >christian democrats in Europe believe in some sort of social accountability. It seems to me that the political terms "left" and "right" have meaning only depend on the context in which they are defined. "Left" and "right" thus mean something different in the US political context than in the Western European one. Even so, it's hard to use a left-right spectrum except for superficial political analysis, since there are many different issues which distinguish political groups and leaders. (The phrase "that's not leftist" can easily verge on meaninglessness.) The usual recourse is to talk about _two_ dimensions. There's siding with the poor & working class vs. siding with the powerful capitalists and their government. Then there's rightist supporting traditional social relations (kinder, kuken, kirken, and nation) vs. leftist pushing for "enlightened" change or individual freedom from traditional forms of repression (homophobia, sexism, racism, nationalism, etc.) A follower of Pat Buchanan might be leftish on the first spectrum by rightist on the second, whereas a US libertarian would be rightist on the first spectrum and leftist on the other. (Old Pat himself is just a fascist knave.) All of this gets pretty confusing, since there are interactions between the two dimensions, so they can't really be separated. I guess one could define left and right in the context of the abstract capitalist mode of production. Then a leftist would oppose it, while a rightist would defend it. But what about other social institutions like racism and patriarchy? Even if we can subsume those as part of capitalism, what about the choice between capitalism and Pol Pot. Pol Pot opposed capitalism, but he was hardly a "leftist." Bringing in a third alternative to capitalism and Mr. Pot messes up the whole political spectrum idea. It's a little like pornography: we can't define the spectrum, but we know what it is when we use it. So let's leave "left" vs. "right" for superficial cocktail-party conversation. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ["clawww" or "liberalarts" can replace "bellarmine"]
Re: Re: Krugman Watch: the estate tax abolition (fwd)
At 00:50 16/06/00 -0400, you wrote: >People use "right" and "left" very arbitrarily sometimes. What does >"right" mean in American politics? and how does "liberal" be left? > >Mine This is a major gap in left wing political culture between the USA and Europe. My guess is that it comes from the severe repression of socialists in the USA during the cold war. As a result left wing thinking in the USA often has a libertarian flavour to it, which misses the point. At least christian democrats in Europe believe in some sort of social accountability. >This column is the linear descendant of articles such as "The Rich, The >Right, and The Facts," which nailed the right on growing inequality when >Krugman wrote it for The American Prospect five or six years ago. But as >always when he tilts liberal, one gets the feeling that the latent >message--repositioning himself on the political spectrum as a balanced, >objective observer--is as least as important as whatever he happens to >arguing. > > >Joel Blau Well framed point about the jostling to appear as a "balanced objective observer". These shifts are how we can detect movements in the underline pattern of ideas, which ultimately are a reflection of the economic base, but always interpreted by people who think they are balanced objective observers. BTW nailing the right on growing inequality is also not a fully socialist idea - it is merely the socialism of redistribution not the socialism of social control of the means of production. Chris Burford London
