Re: [Pen-l] The precarious struggle between race and class

[Doyle Saylor <doylesaylor@xxxxxxx>]

Greetings Economists,
On Oct 12, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:

> What will happen when things don't change?

Doyle;
That is exactly the question that needs attention now.  Previous  
reformist periods in the U.S. produced significant social change.  In  
the case of a bad economy, Roosevelt.  A reformist period must produce  
results because the period demands re-unity from the failures of past  
status quo.

The left will as a necessity define the reformist period from the  
vantage point of equality and democracy for the working class.  Such  
and such is what needs to happen.  And because of the inertia of  
previous periods weighs down capitalist reform the left is free to  
tell a story not yet or perhaps never going to happen with  
capitalism.  Marx could talk about social security because it did not  
exist but was feasible.

If reforms fail, then the consensus collapses that founded reform.     
The right gets stronger resisting all, and enjoys support because they  
won against reform.  The old ways will work because the reforms don't  
appeal on a gut level if not for reason.

Contra; collapse forces most people to their limits of meaning or  
received reason.  The door is open can we walk out of the cabin fever  
and enjoy some fresh air?  Or perhaps a more appealing metaphor have a  
better life?

If reform fails there are two great driving social forces, climate  
change, and energy management.  Just as Japan could not stand the  
energy strangulation prior to WWII, the world cannot long evade energy  
and climate change.  Conservatives would grab for power to maintain  
'order' and the left would formulate the new consensus for the vast  
majority.

For the left the barrier of developed versus undeveloped is the key to  
social change.  A unified global movement is somewhat more feasible  
because of the last period raising China and India economic  
development.  A left demand for global unity arises from reformist  
demands for action on climate and energy.  Nationalizing banks hardly  
works now and must be about concerted efforts globally.  Building the  
basis for broad global reform.  Just a step away from global food  
efforts, global administrative structures, global transportation  
structures and so on, no nation can hope to produce alone.

Hence revolutionary change is global change if reformers can't achieve  
their promises.

An important line in the sand is basic promises like health care.  If  
Obama can't produce such small scale changes then collapse is likely  
of reform and revolution on the global scale is likely.  On a larger  
stage, Obama must act against climate change immediately as well.   
Transportation, energy in the U.S. must change very quickly.  Or the  
result is a little slower but similarly to no reform at all.  The  
reform however, must be global and fast, so I expect Obama to fail  
simply because U.S. weakness now prevents them from unilateral action  
when ten years ago it might have been taken seriously as a hegemonic  
goal.  Hence social revolution (globalist answers) is imminent (in a  
decades measuring time frame though) because all other options are  
closing down.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l