I honestly have no clue what a GOP dominated US would look like. They had their best showing in over a century in 2016 and the major legislative achievement during their small window controlling all branches of government was just another round of Reagan style tax cuts. They didn't hold a single vote on migration, which was the Trump issue or repeal Obamacare, another core issue they spent a decade on.

The party failed to even publish a platform in 2020. It needs a new set of leaders to try to right the ship and come up with some sort of a coherent vision of what the ideal state looks like.

I mean, given there is a 50% chance that they will be in control each term, it'd be nice to see a return to sanity and an ability to govern at the national level. At least with the Dems, even if you don't like their policy, it is easy to articulate what it would be.

Yeah, the GOP didn't have filibuster control of the Senate, so they were limited in what they could do. Trump had a deal to get $20 billion in funding for his wall in exchange for DACA, and he almost went along with it, but then his base got wind of it and that was the end of that.

Not really. Just a matter of degree. The poor would be poorer and the rich richer under Trump.

The comment wasn't aimed directly at you, just at the conflict your post highlighted between a willingness, in this thread, to accept the gritty reality of the US, whilst Ukraine is treated like a Disney film with nothing like the same level of pragmatic realism. The hypocrisy I was alluding to was that of the moderate left in general who support an completely unwinnable war with no hint of realpolitik in Ukraine, but think that supporting Bernie Sanders in America is 'naive' because he can't win.

The comment quoted by EricH does show Chomsky qualifying his general framework to acknowledge the transgressive inversion of the political institutions practiced by the GOP.

The general framework restricting the development of a more participatory democracy are a convergence of the structure built at the founding of the republic with the growth of corporations with legal rights and the 'virtual' senate created through international production and exchange:



A politics that would take on this infrastructure would be a major change in our way of life.

Not really. Just a matter of degree. The poor would be poorer and the rich richer under Trump.

A rape victim being forced to carry her rapist's child to term is not quantifiable in the degree to which "the poor would be poorer and the rich richer." Neither is more people ending up in prisons for drug offenses. Being able to open your own business without losing access to healthcare also has an effect on personal freedom that cannot be quantified in dollar figures. Likewise, people getting to become citizens in the country in which they have made their homes grants them more than merely financially quantifiable benefits.

I suppose if your only unit of analysis is household net worth, this above is true. But that seems more like a problem in picking your unit of analysis than a real reduction. This was always the problem I had with neo-Marxist analysis: "everything comes down to social class, I can prove it by giving an analysis where everything in analyzed only in terms of class," or the newly popular version of doing the same thing with race; it's just a complex form of petitio principii.

I think the goal of the state is to promote freedom. Wealth inequality and overall levels of wealth are certainly a determinant of freedom, but they are far from the only one. For example, a strong sense of national identify that citizens buy into and feel included in is not quantifiable in economic terms. It is, however, essential for freedom for the simple reason that:

1. For a state to be successful requires that citizens are willing to make sacrifices for the state and for the common welfare, and;

2. Citizens will not freely choose to make those sacrifices unless they identify with the state and derive happiness from promoting its greater good.

If citizens do not choose to support the state, but only do so out of coercion, it is on shakey ground. And certainly, with the advent of Trump, I would say that the Republican party has embraced a new vision of freedom that is defined overwhelmingly as negative freedom, i.e., freedom from constraint, particularly government constraint. This view of freedom is, at its core, philosophically anathema to a successful state, though thankfully not all traces of a consideration of reflexive or social freedom has been purged from the GOP, just the "Trumpist" component.

I would say that the Republican party has embraced a new vision of freedom that is defined overwhelmingly as negative freedom, i.e., freedom from constraint, particularly government constraint. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Unless it's drag shows or transgender health care or abortion or critical race theory.

Exactly.

At least the concerns about "indoctrination," in public schools has some basis in a concern for reflexive freedom and self-determination...

Unfortunately, the way this is being addressed is patently absurd, finding indoctrination where there is none, and trying to simply legislate into place their preferred form of indoctrination.

It's absurd that I'm forced to lament the old days of corny Toby Keith songs blaring in the supermarket: "and I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me," uncritical chest thumping, because what came next was "tear down all the institutions, you're only free when nothing constrains you!"

I can understand now why Hegel turned on the sans culottes (that and the whole mass executions thing...).

For purposes of the OP, it seemed like a better bet to avoid the more equivocal issue of the Republican Party's dive off the deep end. It is too early to know how the far right wing politics will play out. As far as I can tell, they are still committed to the positions of The Business Party, even if some of them are stark raving mad.

Thanks for the video clip. The idea of a "virtual senate" protecting property interests globally is new to me, but the agile mobility of global capital is not.

If citizens do not choose to support the state, but only do so out of coercion, it is on shakey ground. And certainly, with the advent of Trump, I would say that the Republican party has embraced a new vision of freedom that is defined overwhelmingly as negative freedom, i.e., freedom from constraint, particularly government constraint. This view of freedom is, at its core, philosophically anathema to a successful state, though thankfully not all traces of a consideration of reflexive or social freedom has been purged from the GOP, just the "Trumpist" component.

It’s true, I believe. On the whole of it, the liberal tradition of negative freedom has hardly made any inroads into the public domain until relatively recently.

Rather, it was the republican tradition of freedom as a mix of the rule of law and the independence from arbitrary will that has always been the core of it, from Madison and Jefferson and Adams on downward. This view makes the state central to the achievement of individual freedom, perhaps ironically.

The Business Party is not challenged by the focus on culture wars as long as property laws are enforced and debts are paid. A lot of the changes frightening the 'replacement theory' crowd have come about because of the expansion of corporate power and the weakening of local forces in relation to larger ones.

Let's all gather at a Target parking lot to stop them from selling butt plugs! Don't forget to bring your guns in case antifa shows up too.

I see Chomsky as saying the following, based on several interviews I've seen over the years:

There are two factions of the business party. That's undeniably true. But that doesn't mean there's not differences. In a powerful state like the US, even small differences can have a big impact. So they still matter.

I think with the Bernie campaign, Trump, and the GOP going so extreme as to not even be considered a political party anymore -- that's changed things a bit. The differences are now stark. Not just the ones @Michael mentions, but also on climate change -- which, in my opinion, eclipses even the others.

I don't see anyone saying both parties are the same, though. That they're both beholden to special interests who finance their campaigns, usually have ivy league educations, are generally wealthy or have become wealthy, etc. -- yeah, that's a commonality throughout -- whether it's Nancy Pelosi or Ted Cruz. In that sense they're both the business party. But even the business world isn't a monolith. Fossil fuel interests are different than teachers unions and tech companies.

To anyone vaguely wondering if the OP is suggesting that both parties are virtually identical and therefore it matters not which one is in office... no. Of course not. There were obviously appreciable differences even before Frump and his horde of patri-idiotic revoloonies stormed the Capitol in search of souvenirs and selfies.

And the GOP is increasingly under the sway of Christian nationalism (which is arguably neither authentically Christian nor truly national). Goodness knows what laws they would enact if they had complete control. Citizens might be required to memorize Bible passages and look like Amish people (no offense to them).

All that aside for the moment (and it’s a lot), the two parties seem to be playing “good cop, bad cop” on a large scale. The Democrats usually play the sensitive and caring “good cop”. Except when it comes to taxes lol. Yes, taxes are too high. And the taxes are often mis-spent, when not completely stolen. Even those on the Left can see that. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that the two parties would rather take their lumps from each other, if it guarantees them the penthouse.

It seems that this thread shows the relevance of this question in general, and as something to ask Prof. Chomsky when he visits here. And asking related questions, like “what do Progressives have to do to make an impact?”

:up: :100: :clap:

Also, consider this set of facts that go against the unitary "business party argument."

-Republicans, who have been feuding with big tech, particularly social media companies over what they consider to be inappropriate censorship, have advocated for huge legal changes that would dramatically affect these companies liability to law suits and ability to generate profit. They have also pushed wholly breaking up these companies as monopolies, which is just about the biggest step the government can take against a company and its shareholders outside of dissolving the corporation wholesale, nationalizing it, or fining it into bankruptcy (which is essentially seizing its assets).

-Many of Democrats laws would dramatically effect big agra's ability to generate profits by enforcing pollution based taxes on products. Dems have also entertained the idea of breaking up meat packing companies as 85% of all meat is now controlled by 4 companies and 60% of the value of the average grocery cart goes to 5 major conglomerates.

- GOP state secretaries have stepped in to find companies that move away from carbon based power. These companies are doing so as part of a business plan and the GOP is using policy to overrule business decisions on the grounds that the coal sector is declining due to unjust "woke" agendas.

- Democrats almost universally advocate for an equal rights amendment that would radically shift law suits over discrimination in favor of workers. Currently, in most states, it is completely legal to fire someone for being homosexual or transgender. Arguments over company's rights to deny service based on identity also divide the parties.

That is, they are in no way unitary vis-á-vis businesses and one party getting a super majority would generate major winners and losers in the market.

For example, the Democrats absolutely massive package for green technology obviously has a real impact on the amount of revenue electricity producers generate, not to mention that Dems have generally been far more in favor of having the state take over utilities historically (this is no longer the case, the government doesn't want to own utilities anymore because it often ends up being a political nightmare, but that's another issue).

Texas's deregulation of its energy grid had very real consequences for the lives of Texans for example. The state parties differed as to support for that even though it was a pro-buisness move.

Nationalizing healthcare generates tons of winners. For low wage employees, the employer share of their health care can be greater than 50% of their compensation. Businesses that employ a lot of low wage workers and small businesses stand to gain massively from national health insurance. Health insurance companies would be wiped out and providers would likely see wages dip. Given this is 1/5th of GDP and majority private, it's hard to see his a huge difference in this front can mean the same thing for businesses.

I suppose if your only unit of analysis is household net worth, this above is true. But that seems more like a problem in picking your unit of analysis than a real reduction. This was always the problem I had with neo-Marxist analysis: "everything comes down to social class, I can prove it by giving an analysis where everything in analyzed only in terms of class," or the newly popular version of doing the same thing with race; it's just a complex form of petitio principii. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The only unit of analysis is cash in a capitalist system, which is what the one party will support at any cost. The cultural discussions about abortion, transgenderism, race, wokeness etc. are irrelevant distractions. While some of this nonsense has profound, tragic effects on the lives of individuals, from a socio-economic perspective it should be ignored. The only one that I think is a meaningful difference is universal healthcare. All the rest gets a lot of voters very pumped up but at the end of the day has really very little relevance to how people live their lives on a day to day basis.

Yup.

Especially when you consider, in the USA at least, how much these issues are pushed to the side. Consider, for instance, Roe v. Wade. Who won on that one?

EDIT: I think the reply might be something like universal healthcare -- but, in terms of capital, who won on that one?

Senate Republicans (except Murkowski and Collins) blocked the Equal Rights Amendment.

The Amendment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The only unit of analysis is cash in a capitalist system

Is that true in all cases? If we took away access to birth control entirely and began allowing child marriages, wealth would still be the only thing that mattered so long as the system remained capitalist?

What if we have a capitalist system but allow slavery for one class of people? Would emancipation be only relevant in economic terms?

While some of this nonsense has profound, tragic effects on the lives of individuals, from a socio-economic perspective it should be ignored

If someone loses their job for being gay, doesn't it effect their socioeconomic status? Jim Crow had dramatic effects on the socioeconomic status of 13+% of the population and was a similar issue. That seems quite relevant.


I don't agree that differences between the parties on cultural issues are irrelevant, but I find that more understandable than the claim that in a capitalist system rights are essentially irrelevant if that's what you're saying.

:up: