On Feb 11, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Shane: ".Now the common interests of the ruling class so far exceed
> their divisions"
>
> [WS:] This is just your opinion without any proof. Why would the 19th
> or for that matter the 16th century be different than the 21 st
> century? What structural factors - other than the vile character of
> the rules and their lackeys which is pretty much constant - can
> explain than[sic] "now" is fundamentally different than "then"?
"structural," "fundamentally"--this is asking for some theoretical schema characterizing centuries. Which would be pure nonsense. I merely pointed out a fact: the difference between Philippe Égalité and his cousin Louis Capet was marked by a guillotine, the difference between Barack Obama and George Bush was marked by an embrace.
On Feb 11, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Shane: " But things are different nowadays
> [WS:] And what makes them different, exactly?
WS is responding to what I wrote yesterday:
On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> ...the "ruling class" is not a unified group but rather a
> collection of groups sometimes cooperating and sometimes competing
> with each other...
This once was true, in the epoch of the bourgeois revolution. It was
leading members of the ruling class--Talleyrand (LÉveque d'Autun) and
Louis Philippe d'Orléans (head of the junior branch of the Bourbon
dynasty) who initiated and led the French revolution in its earlier
and middle stages and went so far as regicide. But things are
different nowadays...
> [WS:] And what makes them different, exactly?
...Now the common interests of the ruling class so far exceed their
divisions that the crimes of a Bush (for which a Philippe Égalité
would have invoked the guillotine) are given total amnesty (as well as
the sincere tribute of imitation) by the head of the "rival" group,
that loathsome liar Barack Obama.
Shane Mage "Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64