How ''Progressive Reform'' Helps Preservation of Capital and Capitalism

All Republics seem to become Empires after they achieve a certain amount of industrial and military strength; the threshold is the point at which the armed and state security forces become larger than the civilian authorities. Rome, The Dutch Republic, The United States. The French Republic became an Empire twice in the period after 1789. So much for ‘Liberte’, ‘Egalite’, ‘Fraternite’; so much for de jure fictions. ‘’Progressive Reform’’ -as understood by social-liberal and social democratic types- is the counterpart, in politics, to economic Keynesians. An economic theory as flawed as its ‘’bimetallist’’ precursor. What progressive reform does for the political system of capitalism, Keynesian economics does for its economic system. Both aim to save capitalism (as a political-economy), from itself. In this sense and in the specific case of the current Empire, ‘’progressive reforms’’ had the effect of protecting the United States political system; of maintaining the illusion de jure of the forms associated with the existence of a ‘’democratic republic’’. Reform Law thus became the basis for an elaborate exercise in perception management: If it looks and feels ‘’democratic’’ then it must be. The emphasis is placed on superficial imagery and not on substance. The legal and electoral system of the United States only exists to grant legitimacy to a political economy premised on the private ownership of capital. To reinforce the illusion of ‘’democracy’’ superimposed on a highly un-democratic social reality. Hence the institution of juries and ‘’periodic elections’’ where fraud and stage management are the norm and from which legitimate opposition candidates are excluded. Discourse is limited to ideas and premises that accept private ownership of capital as immutable conditionality. The 20th Century ‘’reforms’’: Direct election of senators; Extending to Women the right to vote; Limits on presidential terms; State and local referenda; Anti-trust laws; The 8 hour day; The minimum wage; The fiction of ‘’Civil Rights’’ and ‘’Civil Liberties’’ constitute incremental steps in the process of de jure image construction, even if in most cases the reforms in question were forced upon the capitalist political class by popular movements. ‘’Progressive Reforms’’ have allowed the United States to maintain the de jure image of a ‘’democratic republic’’ while de facto it evolved, in parallel, into a highly centralised, militaristic, unilateralist, imperialist, and repressive entity that threatens humanity with nuclear extinction lest it not vow to the will of the ‘star and stripes’. The evolution of ‘Pax Americana’ begun in the 19th Century with the annexation of Florida, The Louisiana extortion, the invasion of Mexico, ‘’Indian Removal’’, the conquest of the Philippines; matured in the 20th Century with the 1947 passage of the ‘National Security Act’ creating a permanent war economy, Korea and Vietnam; and peaks in the 21st Century with the interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. These events where incremental and cumulative steps on the road to a global unipolar dominion that aims to wear the mask of ‘’Freedom’’. The ‘’American Democracy’’ is only an illusion. The reality behind ‘Brand America’ is that the appearance of careful management is only the careful management of appearances. Who benefits? The 5% of the United States population that owns 80% of the wealth. The system of Empire exists for their benefit; the social heirs to the slave owning and mercantile interests that declared independence from Britain in 1776. This is why Marxists (correctly) define the capitalist political class as an executive committee for carrying out the collective will of the Bourgeoisie; and why they denounce ‘parliamentary cretinism’ for what it is.

///

post-script 2026

indymedia is still at it...

Anti-capitalist Critique of ''Social Democratic'' Party Politics

What follows is an anti-capitalist critique of sections of the 2006 Swedish Social Democratic Party election platform that deals with migration control and social policy issues:

[The Social Democratic Party led government was ousted from power during the September 17th, 2006 general election in a neoliberal-conservative landslide that saw gains by racist far right parties in local areas and medium size towns. The Left and Green parties lost half their seats in the parliament. The new regime promises to institute massive cuts in social services in its first 100 days in government, possibly Sweden will join NATO.]

I

Platform: ‘’General Election day, September 17th, is when Sweden’s future is to be decided … should we further improve our welfare system, or should we downgrade it by taking one out of every five tax krona out of the public coffers? Should we continue developing the Swedish Welfare model or should we abandon it? ‘’ It is clear that the subtext for this statement is the politics of the ‘’lesser evil’’. Implicit is the attempt to identify ‘’Social Democratic Party’’ with ‘’Welfare Model’’; while in reality the Social Democrats have long ago abandoned their original commitment to the ‘’Peoples Home’’ democratic socialism they preached in the 1970’s. It was the Social Democratic Party that dismantled the core Welfare State policies in the 1980’s and 1990’s under the rubric of ‘modernisation’. The attempt to appeal to the myth of a largely non-existent ‘’Swedish Welfare Model’’ is an effort at election time deception by praying on the fears of working class voters who know perfectly well that the level of wages has been stagnant for the past ten years (despite increases in worker productivity), and that provision social benefits and services (both in relation to actual need and inflation), have been in drastically cut. Platform: ‘’We Social Democrats want a Sweden built on diversity. The community must be founded on mutual respect for differences within the framework of accepted basic democratic values…Swedes of foreign origin still encounter prejudice and discrimination. People of foreign extraction are more likely to be unemployed. We cannot tolerate injustices of this sort.’’ If the Social Democratic Party were truly interested in Social Cohesion it would abandon the neo-liberal policies it has pursued for the last ten years. The unregulated market is premised on economic un-democracy; while the draconian and repressive migration control policies of the current Social Democratic Party government work to legitimise and embolden xenophobic and racist attitudes in the society. Platform: ‘’ In Sweden we keep our ambitions high to ensure that everyone who receives a residence permit will quickly be able to learn Swedish and find a job. We strive above all to facilitate integration by paving the way for more jobs and developing public welfare…’’ FAT CHANCE ! The craven hypocrisy and deceitfulness of this statement flies in the face of facts. Only 22% of those who apply for a residence permit receive one (among the lowest approval rates in Europe), that means that MOST immigrants are subjected to the indignities of the abusive and repressive migration control system and the ‘fast track’ deportation policy. The funding for Swedish as a second language programs as well as for housing and healthcare services for immigrants was drastically cut in 2004; and there are no quality well paying jobs for ANYONE, lest of all immigrants. The only ‘’jobs’’ on offer (aside from ‘casual’ and temporary work in the private sector), are slave labour ‘Workfare’ and ‘Practicum’ schemes where one works for roughly the equivalent of a welfare check with no benefits or legal protections. There is no link between wages from these schemes and cost of living inflation. It is hard to receive placement in the workfare schemes because the waiting list is years. I have already mentioned how Social Democratic Party governments acted to dismantle the core of the Social Welfare State during the 1990’s. Platform: ‘’Social attitudes must change, and legislation is needed to combat all forms of discrimination…’’ The actual legislation on migration control is biased against immigrants and the official policies of the Social Democratic Party in power promote anti-immigrant sentiment by capitulating to it. Less than 20% of those who appeal migration board rulings get to stay legally and there is a punitive four-year limit on access to social services imposed on EU immigrants from Eastern Europe who have a LEGAL RIGHT to migrate to Sweden if they choose according to European laws. These policies are clearly contradictory to the stated intent of the Social Democratic Party and openly discriminatory.

II

In the measure that the Social Democratic Party adapts to neo-liberal and to market-oriented ideology it denotes an implicit tendency towards abandoning the (now mythical) ‘’Swedish Welfare Model’’. Reliance on the unregulated market undermines the possibility for long-term employment and for social security and cohesion. ‘Workfare’ and ‘Practicum’ slave labour schemes are NOT real work, and insofar as they undermine gains in matter of wages, conditions and benefits won by organised labour in context of collective bargaining they have anti-social effects. ‘Workfare’ and ‘Practicum’ policies denote tokenism: the social politics of minimalism and pointillism. The solution to unemployment is a public works program that guarantees wages indexed to productivity premised on the expansion of the public sector. The Social Democratic Party advocates the contraction and privatisation of the public domain. Their proposals to ‘’combat economic crime and benefit fraud’’ and to ‘’halve absenteeism from work due to illness by 2008’’ point to their intention to implement repressive policies that would target the working class, poor immigrants and pensioners. The politics of neo-liberalism with a ‘’social’’ face that the Social Democratic Party implements undermine social security and social cohesion at the expense of workers who are forced to accept wage freezes and benefit cuts in order to maintain private sector profitability and competitiveness. Workers wages remain stagnant despite yearly increases in productivity per worker and per industry in the period between 1995 and 2005. Wages must be indexed to productivity. The fiscal policy of the Social Democratic Party is openly pro-business and pro-war. They are calling for 2.3 billion krona in subsidies for Swedish pharmaceutical, aerospace and defence concerns. The Swedish weapons manufacturing industry exports its wares to Zionist Israel and to the United States. Clearly the proposal to subsidise the weapons manufacturing industry amounts to a call for utilising taxpayer’s money to directly support the use of Swedish made weaponry against the Palestinians and the Iraqis. The Social Democratic Party is calling for a 900 billion krona across the board tax cut for business; they have already abolished inheritance taxes and want to implement additional targeted (‘’special’’) tax cuts to benefit private sector initiatives to cost tax payers one billion krona; not to mention 2 billion krona for ‘’capital risk security’’ (i.e. a subsidy for the stock market to enable more speculation). In contrast the amount earmarked for social services, education, healthcare, and housing COMBINED is to stay frozen. The only increase (30%) will be for the ‘Workfare’ and ‘Practicum’ slave labour schemes and for police so that they can implement initiatives against ‘’benefit fraud’’. In view of this it should be clear that the Social Democratic Party is actively engaged in the deception of working class, immigrant and pensioner voters. A vote for the Social Democratic Party would be a vote for neo-liberalism.

Re: ...''Hugo Chavez (and) real Anti-capitalism'' ...

***A Bolivarian Reply to some unfair criticisms of Chavez: ***

*

Re: ''The incurable flaw of the Left seems to be its weakness forleadership cults. Apparently the global left has forgotten thehorrors of Stalinism and Maoism.''

*

Reply: The basic assumptions of this comment are innacurate. Hugo Chavez isnot ''like Stalin'' or ''Mao''. The Bolivarian Revolution has not established a dictatorship. There is absolute freedom of speech, movement and the press in Bolivarian Venezuela.

**

Re: ''It is no longer capable of differentiating between grassrootscontrol and bonapartism (i.e. rule by a strongman).''

*

Reply: The propaganda that Chavez is a ''stongman'' comes from the neo-liberal, pro-Bush opposition: The Escualidos. Chavez is a democratically elected president who presides over a socialist democracy in construction. The aim of the Bolivarian revolution is to achieve a situation where the people of Venezuela will be the rulers of their own destiny: personally and collectively.

*

Re: ''The global left fools itself, furthermore it contradicts itself by thinking that following nationalist strongmen is the way to bring about a global ecologically sustainable socialistdemocracy.''

*

Reply: Chavez is not a ''stongman''. He is the democratically elected leader of the people of Venezuela. The Nationalism of the Bolivarian revolution is a positive type of nationalism because it aims to empower Venezuela against United States imperialism.

*

Re: ''The leadership cults around Mao or Stalin in the past; Castroand Chavez today all have a common denominator: The suppression of critical thinking in favor of the BIG LIE – whatever it might be, nomatter how absurd.''

*

Reply: There is no ''supression of critical thinking'' in Venezuela. There is absolute freedom of the press and absolute freedom of speech, more so than in the United States or the European Union. In Bolivarian Venezuela the right to free expression is extended to the poor and those socially excluded under neo-liberal capitalism.

*

Re: ''Honest socialists and other progressive people are focusing so much on the apparently ''anti-capitalist'', ''anti-Yankee'' rhetoric emanating from Telesur and Chavez's various media performances...that they are not looking at Chavez critically.''

*

Reply: Denunciations of U.S. Imperialism and global neoliberalism are not just ''rethoric''. The Chavez government ACTS politically, economically and diplomatically on its words to serve as a counterpoint to U.S. domination over Latin America. The media performances come from the opposition media, whose style of journalism is yellow.

*

Re: ''The Multinationals still control the economy, the rich continue to become richer at the expense of the poor, the projects related to the so-called `'empowerment'' of the urban and rural poor are no more than localized experiments, there is corruption, there is rampant crime, street children. The `'Cogestion'' (i.e. workersco-management) projects are a scam. The workers never really manage anything. The `'workers management'' meetings are staged for the benefit of visitors and TV cameras.''

*

Reply: These are lies. Yes, there is a private sector but it is taxed and regulated. The State and NGO sectors have a proportional influence over the Venezuelan political-economy. There is no private sector dictatorship as in the United States. Poverty and unemployment have been reduced consistently since 2004 while economic growth per annum has been 5 to 8 %; these facts are recognised by the World Bank. There is a crime and corruption problem, but the Bolivarian government is in the process of implementing policies to counter these phenomena. No one has said that the Bolivarian Revolution is ''perfect''. There is plenty of crime in the United States and in the European Union. There are 'Misiones' (i.e Social Programs), in place to provide services to street children and the homeless. The Cogestion program is not ''stage managed'', the workers have direct imput into production in Alcasa and PDVSA. This situation did not exist under the previous neoliberal capitalist regime.

***

For Bolivarian perspectives on Venezuela visit: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/