This is moving into a reform vs. revolution argument which
will not be resolved, but a few secondary points:
Father Devine said,
> I've never believed that EVERYTHING that the right says is wrong, so
> that's no argument. (To say that something is wrong because a
> rightist says so is analogous to the fallacious argument that "the
> enemy of my enemy is my friend.")
Sure. I meant that from a left point of view, whether reform
or revolutionary, it behooves us to find a way to differentiate
our own critique of the state from the Right. Otherwise we
just build them up.
> . . .
> population as a whole; to Marxists, the capitalist state's
> principal is the capitalist class as a whole. (BTW, this
> summarizes Hal Draper's interpretation of Marx's state theory in
> his KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION.)
Aren't there views in Marxism that see the state as an arena
for conflict, rather than an unambiguous tool of the bourgeoisie?
If the former is true, than reforms are practical goals, though not
necessarily the only ones.
> Of course, this difference in identities between the two "publics"
> corresponds to the split between the two publics that Max alludes
> to (not quoted above): the "public" that receives interest on the
> government's debt (mostly capitalists) is different from the
> "public" which pays taxes to pay that interest.
Obviously most recipients of interest income pay the personal
income tax. Secondly, the public outside of this group which
pays taxes to pay interest has received public benefits which
were financed by the debt which requires such interest. The
split is not quite as stark as you make out.
> I would say that the abolition of the state, i.e., the
> subordination of the state to the people, has to be the long-term
> goal of the left. And the left critique of the actually-existing
If by "subordination" you mean democratization, fine, but why
then say "abolition", except of 'the state as we know it'?
> . . .
> Sure, this may overlap with the militias' eye view. But as I said,
> just because a right-wing bozo (or set of bozos) believes something
> doesn't mean that it's _a priori_ wrong. Even a stopped clock like
> Milton Friedman or Rush Limbaugh is right twice a day.
My concern is not overlap of statements, as noted above, but
political impact.
.. . .
> I would agree that Congress is the _most_ democratic of the three
> branches -- and I never advocated diminishing the power of
> Congress _relative to_ that of the other two branches.
Huh? You want to reduce their power in concert?
> But I don't see Congress as the "only institution of potential
> reform." The only way Congress could ever be that way is if there
> were a mass popular movement of working people _outside of_
> "normal" politics, outside of deal-making, lobbying,
> influence-peddling, and campaign contributions, pushing in a way
> that counteracts the shit-storm of money and threats coming from
> the capitalists. The periods of the most successful reform are
> those periods with such mass movements, as in the 1930s and 1960s.
Right. Congress is the institution, the instrument, while the working
class is the motive force.
> I don't reject reform. I just think the main impetus for it comes
> from outside the beltway. (When it does come from on high, it is
> more temporary. I'm all in favor of Roe v. Wade, but the fact
> that the Supes were not responding to popular demand when they
> made their decision undermined support for the liberal Court and
> gave ammunition to the "pro-lifers." This is very different from
> the Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas decision, which
> prevailed in the era of a mass civil rights movement.)
No disagreement there.
> When I used the word "liberal," I made a mistake in not explaining
> that I was using it in the broad political-theory sense, which
> includes both classical (laissez-faire) and modern (New Deal)
> liberalism. That vision sees the polity as involving a basic
> societal consensus, i.e., no classes, no structural conflicts of
> interest, so that the main issue is one of individuals arguing over
> the nature of the public good and restraining the "special
> interests," i.e., the free-riders.
To me this is mixing apples and oranges. There's no basis for
generalizing that "modern (New Deal) liberalism" is blind to
class. I'm not sure what you mean by structural conflicts of
interest. There is what I would call a social liberalism that
focuses on culture, civil liberties, consumerism, discrimination,
and the poor which is insensitive if not hostile to working
class interests.
> I didn't say "disappearance." Instead, I was seeing in Krugman
Krugman is not the archetype of liberal economics. He's not
politically connected to the left anywhere. He's a media
liberal who gets an extra boost from Mother Jones. He spends
more time denouncing real liberals, not just the left, than anything
else. He's not a good example for your case.
If you want to deconstruct liberal economics, people like Thurow,
Baumol, Blinder, the Galbraiths, etc. would be better targets.
Cheers,
Max
