Joseph Catron wrote:
>
>
> However, it occurs to me that while you're right about both term limits and
> filibuster abolition working against the interests of politicians, only one
> - the former - will reliably work in the interests of the bourgeoisie.
This is a digression from or footnote to the main topics of this thread.
I want to suggest that the phrase "interest of the bourgeoisie" is nonsense and confuses every discussion in which it is used.
THE bourgeoisie, i.e. THE Capitalist Class AS A WHOLE has only one interest: that capitalism continue and that socialist movments fail. On every other issue you will find that there is no such thing as THE CLASS INTEREST of bourgeoisie; there will be only a huge muddle, in which the "intests" of one group of capitalists is served by this policy mix, but that it hurts the "interests" of some other group of capitalists, and so forth.
As to term limits and filibuster, THE bourgeoisie has no horse in that race. Capitalism does not exist only in the U.S., you know. It is an international system, and it operates beautifully, _as capitalism_, under the most wildly diverse forms of state.
Moreover, any two capitalists will undoubtedly not agree perfectly as to what the immediate interests of _their_ segment of capital is. The dime-1 difference between the two parties (not just now but anytime over the last 150 years, and the differences within each party, reflect this chaos of interests of capitalists and capitalist allies in the U.S.
So we have two different 'domains' of discourse here. One concerns what, if anything, endangers the very existence of a capialist class (the bourgeoisie). The other concerns which elements of the capitalist class are served, which are not, by a given practice or piece of legislation. Even a National Health Service woul not necessarily or even probably constitute any challenge to THE bourgeoisie, though many sectors of the capitalist class would freak out at the danger, othrs would nicely adjust themselves to live with it happily. Even the nationalization of several sectors of capital, even if that were without compensation, would not necessarily endanger THE bourgeoisie, though it would certainly galvanize a lot of opposition.
But please do not talk about THE bourgeoisie in ref erence to every ragtag issue that roils the public waters.
Carrol