Re: SSSP session on Democratic Party, comment

At 08:37 AM 2/16/00 -0600, Spectors wrote:
>Mark --
>
>Just because someone wrote a book claiming to have "Brought the state back
>in" doesn't simply erase 150 years of contrary social thought!
>

        Just because there has been 150 years of 'contrary' (how contrary is
it when it is 150 years old?) social thought fails to mean it has
analytically captured a 'model,' only that it has been successful as a
social movement in institutionalizing itself as vociferously as discourses
of pluralism--which was far from my implication, and which I would say have
failed to capture a 'model' either.  ;-) As for A. Wayne's comment, yes, I
quite agree with Gramsci.
        I'm sure we have much more to agree upon than disagree upon, despite
this. I find models of political economy more close to 'evidence' when
discussed in terms of consumptive political economies, which tie in the
interests of micro-meso- and macro- aspects, plus the environment as raw
material and as waste site.

Mark Whitaker




>Of course governmental institutions can act against the interests of one or
>another group of capitalists. That is not the question. The empirical
>question is whether "THE STATE" is some sort of free-floating institution
>de-linked from the class relations of production, distribution, 
>exploitation
>that underlie and saturate our social insitutions.
>
>Is this "State" some sort of mystical muse that arbitrarily and whimsically
>makes policy? Or does it rigidly follow Weber's or Michel's abstract social
>psychology handbook on what the "rules of behavior" must be when an
>organization reaches a certain size?
>
>In the justifiable philosophical battle against extreme, narrow "economic
>determinism/economic reductionism" , many people flee to a kind of
>"psychological reductionism" which rather subtly "brings rigid theories of
>human nature back in".  It usually is nothing but a form of ordinary
>liberalism-pluralism that ultimately asserts that oppressed classes CAN
>achieve liberation by simply changing the rules of the state. It also
>assumes that the classes in power will step aside.
>
>I'm inclined to believe that the classes in power will resort to the worst
>kinds of mass brutality and murder imaginable before they give up power.
>But that's an empirical question. Care to look at the evidence?
>
>Alan Spector --who hopes this doesn't come across as contentious, really 
>:)>
>
>==================================================
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Douglas Whitaker <mrkdwhit@wallet.com>
>To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
>Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 2:21 AM
>Subject: Re: SSSP session on Democratic Party, comment
>
>
>>>
>>>Exposing aspects of capitalist injustice certainly does open the door to
>>>reformism or intellectual gadflyism without praxis -- both of which could
>>>undermine the struggle for deeper social transformation. On the other
>hand,
>>>one could argue that merely changing the structure of the election laws
>>>similarly only plays into the reformism that asserts that social 
>injustice
>>>and inequality can be achieved without confronting the class nature of 
>the
>>>state, and the state itself, and the class (capitalist) which controls 
>the
>>>state.
>>
>>        I'm confused about the sentence above. Do you mean, "one could
>argue
>>that merely changing the structure of the election laws
>>>similarly only plays into the reformism that asserts that social justice
>>>and equality can be achieved"?
>>
>>        All I can suggest is to read that person's article (the web
>address)
>>I passed dealing with the effects of government structure on the urban
>>level, which belie an argument about the economic essentialism of the
>>government, the argument you are posing. Come on, I thought the state was
>>'brought back in' about twenty years ago, at least? ;-)
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>Mark Whitaker
>>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>
>>
>
>