"Incremental change" is a Third Way lie.

[BainsBane]

65. I know you haven't said it

But that is definitely the general view on the site. People are heavily invested in the presidential election and think electing Sanders is itself transformative. Before that they were hoping for Warren. I can only imagine they viewed Obama similarly.

I think you're right about my comments and theirs antagonizing one another. I imagine I do antagonize people, as your response indicated, even though it wasn't my intent. I react quite badly to being called Third Way or centrist, when I see myself as far from that. In fact, I find it far more offensive than any number of profane insults. Such charges have often come in response to my discussions of the nature of the capitalist state. I posted a thread with some Marxist theory several months ago and a couple of people came in and claimed it was all a DLC plot to get Clinton elected, when the post made no mention of her anywhere and was in no way conceived as being about her. I simply do not place that much importance on the presidency or individual public figures, and my conception of history (which is my formal training) is strongly influenced by Marxism.

I would submit historical evidence shows that the interests of capital were central to the founding of the nation, not just since the 1800s. The US emerged in response to liberal ideas, Adam Smith, John Locke, the stuff we all learn in survey classes. Liberalism was the political corollary of capitalism, and the US constitution is the quintessential liberal, and hence capitalist, document.

Look, I'm old--well, middle-aged. I don't have your enthusiasm, though I appreciate your dedication. I have for sometime thought that if this country turned outside the political system for change the direction would more likely be right than left. Perhaps that is changing now. My academic training focused heavily on social movements, and I know how extremely difficult and rare it is for them to succeed without being violently suppressed. I know that when people take up arms it is because there are no alternatives left to them. I can't envision an uprising that would take place in enough parts of the country to threatened the state, and of course the US has the most powerful military on earth. A government, even a Sanders-like administration, would use it internally. Yet I claim no predictive ability. I could be proven wrong at any point.

I agree that the only role the Democratic party would play is to co-opt, as it did under FDR. Part of what I find frustrating is that people seem to think there was an ideal past when the Democratic Party represented the people. You know that has never been the case, but the general view of the majority of people on the site is that it was.

The changes in MN are indeed incremental rather than structural. We raised the minimum wage. Local groups are now working for mandatory sick leave. We got gay marriage passed and protecting voting rights. Though MN has a history of socialism (early 20th century) and is more progressive than most of the nation, nothing I mentioned challenges capitalism. And you are correct that such changes hold capitalism together. The US is nothing if not remarkably stable, so I expect much of what is happening now will be co-opted. I think it ironic people call for populist reform because populists have been expert at coopting popular frustrations.

The only thing I have talked about in regard to working with in the system is that in 2000 I reconciled myself to being a loyal Democratic voter. Before that I had periodically voted third party because I didn't see the Democratic Party as representing my views. It still doesn't, however, I approach voting entirely pragmatically now. George Bush, the Iraq War, and Katrina were all so awful, I decided I had to do what I could to contribute to Democrat's electoral chances. Its not that I have become less leftist in ideology. Rather, I approach Politics (meaning electoral, as opposed to politics) quite pragmatically now. I know there is no potential for profound change within the electoral system. As I have said repeatedly, the US is a capitalist state. Its function is to serve capital. In recent years, the relationship between capital and government has become more naked, but it has not fundamentally changed. It has instead been made more visible.

I don't wish for revolution, not because I am enamored of the status quo but because I know how rarely they succeed and how many have been brutally repressed. Nor am I a revolutionary, someone with leadership ability, or anything particularly useful in that regard. It's not that I think the system holds the potential for transformative change. I know it will always promote capital above all else. Like most people, I just do my best to get by.