Originally Posted by roachboy

there's two questions crunched into each other in the last post i put up:

1. the particular functions of pan's mode of interaction in this place when it comes to structural problems and debate about them and
2. an outline of the type of problem in the actually existing world (whatever that means, really) that moderate-ness as processed through (1) would functionally exclude.

then a little rant got started and took on a life of its own.

anyway: i guess my position would come down to: the dominant political parties in the states both operate within ideological boxes that are geared around avoidance of structural problems.

the shared assumptions: capitalism is in itself rational. the parties differ on the extent of that rationality and on what needs to be done compensate for its shortcomings--but both believe that capitalism is in itself rational.

because capitalism is in itself rational, then it follows that the united states, which is the belly of the beast, is in itself rational. problems that arise then are adjustment issues, not functions of problems with the underlying rationality itself. so problems that arise, and which cannot be avoided (avoidance being always plan a, it seems), therefore can be addressed by tacking on some extra element that will be charged with making the necessary adjustment.

but the assumption that the socio-economic order within the united states is necessarily rational because, somehow, it cannot be otherwise a priori is a shared assumption that cuts across party divisions.....

.....and there is no debate. there is no discussion. there are no adjustments. there are no options. there IS avoidance. and this primarily because the spectrum of political positions that the americans confuse with a viable range of alternatives simply doesnt allow for this kind of issue to be addressed coherently.
so i dunno.