> I know "what" bourgeoisie is, I'm just not sure "who"
> they are. It was much easier to tell in the 19th
> century.
>
> As to the "throwing insults" - it was not my
> intention. I just find it difficult to believe that
> knowledgeable people hold such simplistic views of the
> state. It is one thing to use hyperboles - like
> "Somalia" or "executive committee" in jurnalistic
> polemics - but do you, or Marvin, or Yoshie or others
> really belive that the people who call themselves
> "bourgeoisie" speak in one voice, always agree on a
> course of action, communicate that to the government,
> and then the government executes that? If that was
> the case, how do you explain the new deal, civil
> rights, war on povery, th efailure of social security
> "reform" etc, etc.
---------------------------------
Of course not. Companies and industries, exporters and importers, financiers
and manufacturers, etc. often have competing interests. Politically, it is
fairly easy in capitalist societies to distinguish between the so-called
"conservative" or "reactionary" bourgeosie and the "liberal (or
"enlightened" or "progressive") bourgeoisie. Some on the left like the
Communists and social democrats considered these internal differences
between these "fractions of capital" as significant because potentially
exploitable and sought "popular fronts" with the liberal bourgeoisie;
others, notably the Trotskyists and anarchists, thought the left could only
ally with the latter by subordinating its own socialist policies and
discouraging the mass impulse for radical change. Most of the differences on
this and other lists, especially during elections, are still rooted in the
differing perception of whether support of the liberal wing of the
bourgeoisie - grouped around the Democratic party in the US - against the
conservative wing atop the Republican party contributes to or weakens the
struggle to defend and extend social programs.
FDR and JFK who presided over the reforms you cite above came from families who were pillars of the American bourgeoisie, although membership in such families, as Truman and Reagan and Clinton and others demonstrate, is not a prerequisite for high office. The differences between the conservative and liberal wings of the ruling class are tactical ones, turning on the issue of how much reform is necessary at any given time to meet popular demands for social change without fundamentally altering existing power and property relations. As a rule, the liberal bourgeoisie believes some accomodation to popular demands satisfies the mass impulse for change; the conservative bourgeoisie worries that it excites expectations of further change. You had the same divisions within the aristocracy during the period of bourgeois ascendency. Of course, there is truth in both positions, and it is impossible to tell in advance which approach will best serve class interests.
You are wrong, incidentally, to say that efforts to roll back social security benefits have "failed". The issue is on hold. There are important differences between the liberals and conservatives over the scope of the cuts required, the mechanisms needed to accomplish this, the effect on state finances, and the potential for social unrest. The Bush administration, representing the conservative bourgeoisie, has drawn back after calculating all of these factors. A Democratic administration would introduce its own more limited plan after taking all of these factors into account.
There are instances when social crises are so deep that both the liberal and conservative bourgeoisie unite to curtail or eliminate the right to social protest, often violently. Fascism is the most conspicuous instance of this situation. Effectively, the bourgeoisie agrees to transfer "emergency powers" to a strong state and to limit its independence and market perogatives in order to protect itself against revolutionary movements from below. Fascism is the strongest expression of the "relative autonomy" of the state under capitalism.
Honestly, did you not know all this already? What evidence do you have contradict this?