Why do you keep throwing Marxish jargon around like "contradictions within the ruling class" as if we were dealing with the northern industrialists versus the slaveowning class. There are political differences between Gingrich and Clinton. Big fucking deal. Bourgeois polticians have all sorts of differences over abortion rights, gays in the military, the amount of pressure to put on Cuba, etc. These are not the sort of "contradictions" that Marxism deals with, since they are not rooted in opposing class interests. If you really want to study such contradictions in their purest form, read Marx on the civil wars in France.
>
>Perhaps though it is too early until Gingrich's successor is confirmed to
>see if the resignation marks any shift, and I expect US subscribers to have
>access to more of that information. What does "pragmatic conservatism"
>mean, under its necessarily vague label? What does it conceal?
Pragamatic convervatism? This is George Bush, George Pataki, etc. It is a more centrist approach to politics as opposed to the right-wing "contract on America" politics of Gingrich and company. There is no serious difference between pragmatic conservatism and the pragmatic liberalism of Clinton.
>
>Why are the Republicans lamenting that they got no message across about
>their superior ability to manage capitalism in the interests of the people?
>Why did the Stock Exchange rise on the mid-term elections, even though the
>Democrats had spent 100 million dollars less. What, of course subtly, is
>going on?
What, of course subtly, is going on? Nothing is going on except a repudiation of the Monica crusade. Most people polled before the election said that they were sick and tired of Ken Starr and their votes reflected that fact.
>Why has Clinton just issued such a generous statement towards his former
>adversary? Because he believes it?
Why is the sky blue, daddy?
>
>I think, in view of the robust but IMO uncompelling attacks that have been
>made on my position on this list by Mark Jones and Louis Proyect for even
>discussing contradictions among the bourgeoisie, I need to put this
>challenge to Doug, who being the skillful email list host, may no doubt not
>reply in full at present.
Your problem is not that you "discuss" contradictions among the bourgeoisie, but that you foster illusions in Clinton, Blair and company. I usually ignore your mush-mouthed posts, but when you said that Clinton would spend billions around the planet on human needs because "neoliberalism" had been rejected, I decided to answer your capitalist spin-doctoring.
>
>So what is the underlying movement here expressed through the mid-term
>election and the crisis in the Republican, not the Democratic Party? What
>opportunities does it give genuine left wingers? How does marxism, for
>those who are interested in marxism, illuminate it?
Marxists are not fixated on bourgeois elections. My suggestion is that you send off for a transcript of Washington Week in Review from our PBS, where you will find discussion by kindred spirits.
Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)