<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Of course I'm talking about the
construction and transformation of US ruling-class/business parties
(hardly political parties at all as the rest of the world knows
them). They're the institutions whereby the 1% seek to control the
political class = the 20% or so of the population who think they have
a chance of entering the 1% and so pant after that status as "the hart panteth after the water brooks" (according to the psalm...).</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">It occurs to me that what Perry
Anderson wrote about states years ago could be applied by extension
and <i>mutatis mutandis</i> to American parties:</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">"...secular struggle between
classes is ultimately resolved at the political - not at the economic
or cultural - level of society. In other words, it is the
construction and destruction of States which seal the basic shifts in
the relations of production, so long as classes subsist. A 'history
from above' - of the intricate machinery of class domination - is
thus no less essential than a 'history from below': indeed, without
it the latter in the end becomes one-sided (if the better side).</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">"Marx in his maturity wrote:
'Freedom consists in the conversion of the State from an organ
superimposed on society into one completely subordinated to it, and
today too, the forms of the State are more free or less free to the
extent that they restrict the "freedom" of the State.' The
abolition of the State altogether remains, a century [and a half]
later, one of the goals of revolutionary socialism. But the supreme
significance accorded to its final disappearance, testifies to all
the weight of its prior presence in history..." [<i>Lineages of the Absolutist State</i>, p. 11]</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">At least since the bourgeois
revolutions, parties of the sort here considered have been the
instruments for the control of the state (even when they have been
theoretically foresworn, as in the consideration of "faction"
in the Federalist Papers 9-10). The bourgeoisie (the 1%) is always
too small and too weak to rule on its own (unlike, say, the feudal
ruling class), so it must couch its claims to rule in a universal
ideology ("all men are created equal...") and rule by "the
manufacture of consent."* It's been rightly said that the most
revolutionary thing that radicals can do is demand liberals live up
to their proclaimed principles ("all men are created equal")...</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">__________________</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">*[Chomsky quotes Hume on "opinion."] In
considering the<i> First Principles of Government</i>, Hume found "nothing
more surprising" than "to see the easiness with which the
many are governed by the few; and to observe the implicit submission
with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of
their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is brought
about, we shall find, that as Force is always on the side of the
governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion.
'Tis therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this
maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as
well as to the most free and most popular." </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br></p></p></p></div><div><div><div><div>On Jan 14, 2012, at 10:01 AM, David Green wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Party alignments in the U.S. in the past seem to have reflected, to a great extent, differences among forms of ownership and power--agriculture vs. industry, corporations vs. urban machines, big government vs. local petty bourgeois, etc. Ownership interests seem to have been dominant in both major parties at all times, and re-alignments reflect changes in those ownership interests. Current cracks in the system now seem to reflect a lack of a real or even ostensible difference in the major parties' corporatism, militarism, federalism, etc. But can a re-alignment still not fail to inevitably represent ownership interests rather than a genuine popular movement? After all, Ron Paul probably doesn't have a problem with corporatons being people, and one can well imagine a less militaristic but still Social Darwinian society based on his prescriptions.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>DG</span></div><div><br><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> <div style="margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); height: 0px; line-height: 0; font-size: 0px;" class="hr" contenteditable="false" readonly="true"></div> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> C. G. ESTABROOK <<a href="mailto:cge@shout.net">cge@shout.net</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Peace-discuss List <<a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> sf-core <<a href="mailto:sf-core@yahoogroups.com">sf-core@yahoogroups.com</a>> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Saturday, January 14, 2012 2:17 AM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Realignment?<br> </font> </div> <br> <div id="yiv1959348474"><div>[The invaluable Wikipedia summarizes the state-of-play in US party realignments, & I add the last two paragraphs. Of course much more should be done to specify the class character of the different parties in order to account for the realignments. The history of all hitherto existing society is assuredly the history of class struggles, but those struggles are rarely perspicuous. What's necessary is the sort of specific analysis done in <i>The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte </i>& <i>The Class Struggles in France</i>. Don't wait up. --CGE]<div><br></div><div>The concept of party system was introduced by English scholar James Bryce in <i>American Commonwealth</i> (1885).</div><div><div align=""><i>American Party Systems</i> was a major textbook by Charles Merriam in the 1920s. In 1967 the most important [summary of the argument] appeared, <i>The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development,</i> edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham. It brought together historians and political scientists who agreed on a common framework and numbering system. Thus Chambers published <i>The First Party System</i> in 1972, and Burnham published numerous articles and books. </div><div align="">Closely related is the concept of critical elections (introduced by V. O. Key in 1955), and "realignments."</div><div align="">From Robert C. Benedict et al., <i>Political Parties, Interest Groups and Political Campaigns</i> (1999):</div> "Scholars generally agree that realignment theory identifies five distinct party systems with the following approximate dates and major parties: </div><div><span style="white-space: pre;" class="yiv1959348474Apple-tab-span"> </span>(1.) 1796-1816, First Party System: Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists; </div><div><span style="white-space: pre;" class="yiv1959348474Apple-tab-span"> </span>(2.) 1840-1856, Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs; </div><div><span style="white-space: pre;" class="yiv1959348474Apple-tab-span"> </span>(3.) 1860-1896, Third Party System: Republicans and Democrats; </div><div><span style="white-space: pre;" class="yiv1959348474Apple-tab-span"> </span>(4.) 1896-1932, Fourth Party System: Republicans and Democrats; </div><div><span style="white-space: pre;" class="yiv1959348474Apple-tab-span"> </span>(5.) 1932-1968, Fifth Party System: Democrats and Republicans."<div align="">Marjorie Hershey, <i>Party Politics in America</i> (14th ed. 2011), [argues that to date] there have been at least six different party systems throughout the history of the United States:</div><div align=""><b>First Party System: </b>This system can be considered to have developed as a result of the factions in the George Washington administration. The two factions were Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists argued for a strong national government with a national bank and a strong economic and industry system. The Anti-Federalists argued for a limited government, with a more emphasis on farmers and states' rights. After the 1800 Presidential election, the Anti-Federalists (later known as the Democratic-Republicans) gained major dominance for the next twenty years, and the Federalists slowly died off.</div><div align=""><b>Second Party System:</b> This system developed as a result of the one party rule of the Democratic-Republicans not being able to contain some of the most pressing issues of the time, namely slavery. Out of this system came the Whig Party. Wealthier people tended to support the Whigs, and the poorer tended to support the Democrats. The Democrats dominated this era. The Whig party began to break apart into factions, mainly over the issue of slavery. This period lasted until 1860.</div><div align=""><b>Third Party System:</b> Beginning around the time of the start of the Civil War, this system was defined by bitter conflict and striking party differences and coalitions. These coalitions were most evidently defined by geography. The South was dominated by the Democrats who opposed the ending of slavery, and the North, with the exception of some major political machines, was dominated by the Republicans, who supported ending slavery. This era was a time of extreme industrial and economic expansion. The Third Party System lasted until 1896.</div><div align=""><b>Fourth Party System:</b> This era was defined by Progressivism and immigration, as well as the political aftermath of the American Civil War. Northeastern business supported the Republicans while the South and West supported the Democrats. Immigrant groups were courted by both parties. The Fourth Party System came to an end around 1932.</div><div align=""><b>Fifth Party System:</b> This system was defined by the creation of the New Deal Coalition by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression. This coalition supporting new social welfare programs brought together many under-privileged, working class, and minority groups including unions, Catholics, and Jews. It also attracted African-Americans, who had previously largely supported the Republican Party due to Lincoln's freeing of the slaves. This era lasted approximately until 1968.</div><div align=""><b>[Sixth Party System:</b> Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African-American racism among Southern white voters inaugurated the sixth system in 1968. In response, the Democrats gave up the formal demand for economic equality that had animated the New Deal (FDR thru LBJ) and substituted the demand for diversity: identity politics replaced class politics, and the term "class" was abolished from the political lexicon throughout this period. The most noticeable effect was the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party and African-Americans away from the "party of Lincoln" to the Democrats. </div><div align="">This system, inaugurated by what was paradoxically the most liberal administration since WWII, that of Richard Nixon (e.g., environmental legislation), was the setting for the successful counter-attack against New Deal social democracy by Neoliberalism. This Sixth System may now be coming to an end, with Paulist Libertarianism (for lack of a better name) and a new realignment to a Seventh System. Each of the recent systems have lasted about 36 years - a generation and a half, by historians' rule of thumb - so it's about time...]</div><div align=""> "Whereof what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge." </div></div><div align=""><br></div><div><div><div>On Jan 14, 2012, at 1:06 AM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:</div><br class="yiv1959348474Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <span style="display: none;"> </span><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStartT|**|-~--> <div id="yiv1959348474ygrp-mlmsg"> <div id="yiv1959348474ygrp-msg"><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEndT|**|-~--> <div id="yiv1959348474ygrp-text"><div><br class="yiv1959348474webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><div><div><div><i>"Ron Paul wins support of the military while Obama cashes in on war-profiteers.</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>"Defense contractors are pumping money into the campaign for President Obama as he runs for reelection, but one of his biggest competitors, Ron Paul, is cashing in on his opposition to militaristic imperialism..." <</i><a href="http://rt.com/usa/news/paul-military-obama-defense-753/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://rt.com/usa/news/paul-military-obama-defense-753/</a>>.</div></div></div><div><i><br></i></div></div><div><div>It's not out of the question that 2012 could see a realignment of the 'major' parties like 1932 (the New Deal) and 1968 (the Southern Strategy). The collapse of a Romney candidacy and a shift to Paul - either within the Republican party or outside it - would make the alternate to the Democrats' war-and-Wall-St policies be an anti-interventionist, anti-Wall-St., anti-raci st-drug-war (and hence anti-incarceration) party, whether called Republican or not.</div></div><div><div><div><div><div><br>The best evidence that this might happen is Paul's domination of the youth vote in the primaries so far. 'Traditional' Republicans are substantially older, Paul Republicans younger. A Paul insurgency this year may be the basis for the replacement of the Nixon-Reagan-Bush Republicans, especially given the apparent collapse of the Teapartiers. --CGE</div></div></div></div></div><div><br class="yiv1959348474webkit-block-placeholder"></div> </div><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~--> <div style="height: 0px; color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">__._,_.___</div> </div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Peace-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br><br><br> </div> </div> </blockquote></div> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>