Re: [Marxism] More on Kovel's statement

[Dayne Goodwin <dayneg@xxxxxxxx>]

I think liberals and reformists like Joel Kovel have amazing illusions
about the capitalist class.  They imagine that there is a capitalist
consensus which shudders at the Bush administration's blatant imperialism.
I think most capitalists (define capitalists however you prefer) thrill at
Bush's hard-line aggressiveness, while some worry that it might not be
successful, might cause more problems than it 'solves'...  Kovel's ilk
clutch at the crumbs which fall from this table at the periphery of the
Bush banquet.
        If a capitalist consensus develops that the Bush administration
has gone too far, that Bush administration policies and actions have
actually become counterproductive, the Democrat Party is standing by to
fill its role of backing up one step and administering "Bush
administration lite."  The Democrat Party briefcase is full of candidates
with slightly different appeal, prepared for any political contingency -
all anxious to continue their careers of working for the perpetuation of
the capitalist system.  The idea that any of these Democrat Party
capitalist politicians is qualitatively different/better? than the others
is really laughable.
        Do you invest your political energy in supporting the capitalist
two-party political system for administering capitalist society?  Or do
you work for independent working class political organization and power?
        Dayne Goodwin

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Louis Proyect wrote:

> Marvin G:
> >My own view is the opposite. It seems to me the Bush administration has
> >departed -- certainly with respect to the central issue of Iraq -- from the
> >prevailing bipartisan consensus, and that this has alarmed the entire US
> >security establishment, including and especially the Republican old guard
> >represented by Scowcroft, Eagleburger, Kissinger, etc. In essence, these
> >latter regard the team surrounding Bush Jr., especially the callow
> >neoconservative academics, as right-wing adventurists who did not understand
> >what they were getting into when they launched the invasion.
>
> This is exactly what happened when Reagan became President. He was seen as
> a challenge to the cold war consensus, which was posited on the belief that
> the USSR was a permanent fact and that it needed to be "contained". His
> aggressive unilateralist foreign policy was seen as a decisive break with
> the past. However, containment was always dialectically related to more
> confrontational "rollback" views in the imperialism. The opposition to
> Reagan (and Bush today) is tactical in nature. People like Brent Scowcroft
> worry that it might backfire. If the resistance in Iraq had never
> materialized, there would never have been Monday morning quarterbacking
> from Time Magazine et al.

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism