It is fine on a personal level to hate Clinton, but to be limited in one's political approach to a belief that it is a matter of principle to hate particular representatives of the bourgeoisie, is not really a marxist attitude, and actually confines ones perspectives within the limits of the bourgeois electoral system. A more serious marxist attitude is to analyse the class forces and groupings that are represented symbolically by various individuals, and to analyse the possibilities and tactics for change.
I have presented a somewhat longer more reasoned post on the marxism list at the same time as this post.
Broadly I suggest that the trend towards "left-centre" governments in most of the states of the European Union, and the resilience of Clinton's administration, in the current balance of power is the most progressive outcome that marxists could expect at this moment. It creates space for more serious advances. Lets discuss them.
I am drawing a line of demarcation with Louis Proyect in the comments he made in the post below.
Chris Burford
London.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 19:04:27 -0400
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>
Subject: Re: Blair on reform of world finance.
"The Blair government, like the Clinton presidency, is an extension of the right-wing governments that preceded it. The attack on the working class comes from liberal and conservative alike. The reason for this is grounded in Marxist economics, that Burford is always paying lip-service to. There has been deepening global competition since the 1970s. This gives ruling class governments less room for maneuver. All they can do is make promises that things will get better, but tighten the screws once they get into office. Buford's mistake is that he takes their speeches seriously. This means that it is difficult to take him seriously."