I agree. They wasted our blood, sweat, and tears for false promises. Neoliberalism emerged from social democracy. Stagflation caused by the social reforms and the ever lowering rate of profit to create a crisis within capital. With the bourgeois still in power, and the working class weaker than ever thanks to the failure of the CPUSA the natural dialectical process led them to abandoning social reformation and pursuing endless profits as this is within their interests and capability. To believe a social policy brought on an economic change shows a profound lack of understanding of Marxist theory.
This is incorrect. The social reforms cost the capitalist class money which amounts to liquidity as well as having to share capital. When the recession in the 1970s occurred, the US was in debt it could not pay due to the social reforms it enforced during FDR’s time as well as the wars in Korea and Vietnam. When the dominos fell, our class came up short and the capitalists pushed through their “reforms” which did away with FDR’s new deal.
No of course not, the reaction to it wasn’t either to a large degree I’m willing to wager. Capitalists aren’t very good at making and sticking to plans. Their economic instincts revolve around opportunism and observation. Watching the market with fists full of cash, waiting for an opportunity, then pouncing.
Then you aren’t paying attention to the entire conversation, only the latest bit of it. Political momentary hyperfocus is an aspect of liberalism btw. The behest to ignore the big picture, to only follow the latest trends, what’s for sale, etc…
Social reforms which were won with blood, sweat, and tears. Neoliberalism emerged from the 1950s Red Scare.
A Communist Party is supposed to fight for certain victories on the road to revolution; this is what they did.
I agree. They wasted our blood, sweat, and tears for false promises. Neoliberalism emerged from social democracy. Stagflation caused by the social reforms and the ever lowering rate of profit to create a crisis within capital. With the bourgeois still in power, and the working class weaker than ever thanks to the failure of the CPUSA the natural dialectical process led them to abandoning social reformation and pursuing endless profits as this is within their interests and capability. To believe a social policy brought on an economic change shows a profound lack of understanding of Marxist theory.
Neoliberalism emerged from anti-communism and the 1970s stagflation crisis as well. The social reforms were the only thing blocking the stagflation.
This is incorrect. The social reforms cost the capitalist class money which amounts to liquidity as well as having to share capital. When the recession in the 1970s occurred, the US was in debt it could not pay due to the social reforms it enforced during FDR’s time as well as the wars in Korea and Vietnam. When the dominos fell, our class came up short and the capitalists pushed through their “reforms” which did away with FDR’s new deal.
The recession of the 1970s wasn’t planned.
No of course not, the reaction to it wasn’t either to a large degree I’m willing to wager. Capitalists aren’t very good at making and sticking to plans. Their economic instincts revolve around opportunism and observation. Watching the market with fists full of cash, waiting for an opportunity, then pouncing.
Well, there you go: it wasn’t the CP’s fault.
Then you aren’t paying attention to the entire conversation, only the latest bit of it. Political momentary hyperfocus is an aspect of liberalism btw. The behest to ignore the big picture, to only follow the latest trends, what’s for sale, etc…
Yes, that’s the bourgeois. They only adapted to the situation while there were no communists.