On 2011-07-12, at 9:02 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> On 7/12/2011 5:20 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>>
>> It is not so simple. Not all capitalists regard Obama as a "true friend" of the system, as my recent post indicates. Capital is not monolithic. Otherwise it would not have spawned two parties in the US, more in some countries. Some administrations are truer friends of capital than others. For you and some others on the list, this is an irrelevancy. But the parties have different taxation and spending policies which have an impact on economic growth and living standards, and they have the power to appoint regulators and judges which affect the rights of organized workers, national minorities, women, and the other constituencies we support. The conflicting policies and debates within the ruling class are worth following - moreso, I dare say, than the debates on the far left, the outcome of which, at least for now, has no effect on the population, which neither hears nor considers nor is moved by them.
>
> Then we will simply have to disagree. I think it is that simple.
>
> The context of the judgment of course is not that of arriving at a judgment of Obama but that of claiming that criticism of him (such as I would be offering if I were to argue with you over him) is of no political use. Or not quite that even; rather , of inquiring why others thought it was useful.
>
> The President of the United States is a friend of capital, regardless of who he/she is. Not really very interesting.
However, Marx, Engels, and subsequent generations of Marxist thinkers and parties considered careful study of political, social, and economic developments within all social classes, not least the bourgeoisie, to be a necessary basis for analysis. It was understood by definition that all bourgeois politicians were friends of capital - an observation which in itself is not really very interesting. But the particular strengths and weaknesses of various bourgeois leaders and parties, the interests they represented, their internal divisions, and the likely effect of their policies on domestic developments and international relations, and, ultimately, on the tactics of the workers' movement were considered to be greatly relevant. Carrol's logic is effectively an argument against the establishment of security services by the victorious Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, and other anticapitalist regimes, and the efforts of early revolutionary socialist movements, to gather intelligence on the other side. Indifference to the nature of your opponent is alien in general to the thinking of military commanders, chess players, and virtually anyone engaged in real rather than imaginary conflicts.