[PEN-L:9401] Re: The discussion about social democracy

["Max B. Sawicky" <maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx>]

At the risk of being seriously outgunned, I will try to reply to Sid,
Elaine, et al.

Sid asks if I can name examples of constructive intercession and
mediation by reformists.  Note that 'mediation' here for me means
translating the power of mass movements into actual policy.

For some reason some have gotten the idea that I think
forces on the ground are irrelevant, despite my repeated insistence
that they are indispensable.  In fact, to explain any episode of
progressive policy change I would look for what was happening at the
grassroots and draw a line from it to the people actually crafting
and moving the policy through the political system.  (It might
possibly interest someone to know that most of what I do entails
speaking in one way or another to those with no real authority, no
disrespect intended.  For instance, Dick Gephardt never had someone
call me up to ask what I thought of his echt "10 percent tax" before
he proposed it.)

Thus I would explain the New Deal and labor law advances by reference
to the CIO, among other things.  I would attribute various civil
rights acts to the civil rights movements.  I would attribute the
inauguration of Medicare and Medicaid by LBJ to social movements from
1960-1970.  I would note the roles of those crafting and proposing
legislation, rounding up votes in Congress, writing regulations to
implement new law, etc., as well as those constituting and leading
the mobilizations.

My characterization of the "political pressure business"
or "grassaction action per se" was a reaction to its depiction by JD,
which I thought failed to appreciate the connection of followers to
leaders to politicians and assorted wonks assisting them.
The problem with singing requiems for social democracy
is a failure to appreciate that the s-d 'superstructure,' to
borrow a term, which some radicals love to hate, rests on
the state of mass mobilization, and without said mobilization,
as now, the superstructure hollows out and collapses.  The
fault is not in the s-d apparatus or its personalities, and the
ranting (not by yourself) about individual moral decrepitude
is not useful or informative.  Where s-d does not react
satisfactorily to problems confronting the working class, to me this
bespeaks a lack of mobilization, not a moral failure at the top.

Thus it is not a matter of labor 'electing' Clinton (Elaine quoting
Kirkland), but of labor and others mobilized around goals which
contribute decisively to a Democratic victory (by becoming public
opinion, among other things) and which oblige Clinton to do things he
has not.  I wouldn't call labor's role in Clinton's election a
mobilization since its own interests were submerged before and during
the long sequence of primaries and elections, and since organized
labor was not as large a factor as it might have been in the limited
result.  In 1992, the result was limited in the sense that the margin
of victory for Clinton in terms of percent of popular vote (or of
those eligible to vote) was low, and in terms of the unreconstructed
nature of Democratic incumbents in Congress (labor seldom if at all
withheld endorsements in any effort to discipline anti-labor
positions by Democratic candidates).  In 1996 the result was
obviously limited since the Democrats lost both houses of Congress.

I agree with Sid's description of the difference between bureaucrat-
leaders and grassroots followers, but would add that I think it has
more to do with their functions than anything else. Those exercising
power, albeit derived from somewhere else, are apt to be more
pragmatic, protective, and narrowly-focused than those who have
little to lose.  But the ones who aren't sufficiently flexible and
alert to react to changes in underlying political forces will tend
not to survive in the s-d apparatus.  Take Tom Donahue (please), for
example.  Certainly Capital will attempt to identify those elements
of the opposition that are most inclined to demand the least, but
that's all part of the game.  We would do the same thing.  I would
try to say that on balance, the political formation that ultimately
represents the interests of a mobilized working class in the
political system is going to look a lot like social democracy, in the
sense that it will be pragmatic, it will seek compromise, it will be
susceptible to corruption and incompetence, and it will screw up, but
on the whole it will be a reflection of the forces that actually
exist, rather than those which we wished were in existence.  It will
have more progressive positions across the board, but this will be a
reflection of politics outside the beltway and what has become
possible that was not before.

I agree entirely with the Tony Benn quote; maybe we disagree on
whether it is consistent with what I've said.

I also agree with most of Elaine's message and I'm similarly
mystified as to where the inspiration for disagreement comes from.

Funny that I'm no Marxist, yet it seems like my view of this is more
'grounded' a la Marx than those declaiming against reformist
politicians who are merely keeping their noses to the wind.  And no,
I don't see this as a unidirectional process as per the so-called
materialist conception of history, but I'll leave the theorizing to
others.

Beset, if not besotted,

MBS

===================================================
Max B. Sawicky            Economic Policy Institute
maxsaw@xxxxxxxxx          1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice)      Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax)        Washington, DC  20036

Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute.
===================================================