But Louis, this argument is clearly false. We can all think of any number of things that ruling class politicians have said they would do and actually did. "ending welfare as we know it," "getting tough of 'terrorists,'" and so on.
Should we be understanding this argument to be referring simply to reforms, that is, if ruling class interests say something for the public good, we ought to assume that they are disproportionately benefitting from the reform? Critical race theorists make a similar argument about any laws passed that address racial discrimination.
On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, Louis Proyect wrote:
> Your problem is that you interpret books and speeches of ruling class
> politicians as meaningful. This is anti-Marxist. The whole purpose of such
> books and speeches is to bamboozle the public. If anything, the correct
> approach is to read the books and speeches of Gore as a clue to figure out
> what they stand for by reversing everything that is stated.
> For example, if Gore says that tobacco causes cancer, then it is a good
> idea to buy tobacco stocks on margin if he looks like he is going to be
> elected. If Gore pledges an an end to nuclear weapons, then I'd dig a big
> fallout shelter in my backyard and stock up on food and water. Get it?