[lbo-talk] martial law in US

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Wed Aug 10 08:37:48 PDT 2005



> CB: The Constitution "rules out" wars not declared by Congress, but the
U.S.
> has scoffed at its own Constitutional provision for decades now.
>
> The martial law plan is a euphemism for U.S. fascism.

Charles, I agree with your comment re. Constitution and I am not a fan of the current political regime. But it is not at all clear to me, why on earth would the powers that be want to impose a military rule/fascism other than as advertised (i.e. in response to an actual emergency).

Historically, martial law/ fascism was imposed as a last resort measure, when the ruling class was threatened by social unrest or pressures from below. But the opposite seems to be true in the US - the ruling class is firmly in control, and it gets what it wants through ordinary legal means, an enjoys support of the majority of the population. It natural enemies (cf. organized labor, social movements) are getting visibly weaker, so no potential threat from those quarters either. The ruling class is well of, secure, and firmly in control, with no serious challenges from below in sight. Why do they need military rule or fascism? What will it give them what they do not already have?

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list