>>> "Steve Perry" <sperry at usinternet.com> 11/16/99 02:25PM >>>
Or: Reagan and Clinton are both dancing to a tune scribbled
by the same composer, so it's misleading and disingenuous
to talk about either of these apparatchiks as though he
was a first cause/leading agent--and crazier still to try
to pin a lion's share of the blame on either of them.
((((((((((((
Charles: I agree with your criticism here. The focus on individuals instead of classes is incorrect. However, the same was true of Hitler: he worked for the German big bourgeoisie. It is in fact Clinton who orders the bombing of Iraq and he is culpable for that.
I can't remember how we started talking about Clinton and Reagan. Oh , actually it was in response to your post. You had said:
"leaving aside for the moment the question of incipient fascism in the militias, i would argue that the most threatening portents of fascism are in--the democratic party. first, as a practical matter, i do not believe any republican could have gotten by with half the reactionary shit the clinton administration has pulled"
The "Clinton administration" or Democratic Party are not the ruling class either, technically speaking. So, I was sort of following your wording. I mean I could have started talking about "the ruling class", but , you know, "dogma" and "paltry rhetorical devices" and all that, so I just used your concepts. I prefer to talk in terms of the financial oligarchy , if you like.
Also, I think it is important to start naming names of actual individuals who are the leaders of the ruling class , the ones pulling Reagan or Clinton's strings. One of the unique characteristics of the bourgeois ruling class ,as compared to previous modes, is that they rule in relative anonymity.
CB