====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I’ve always thought of bourgeois democracy as being the form in which capitalists rule domestically primarily through persuasion (with their control over the ideological state apparatuses), but are willing to use force when necessary. (Think of the violent repression of the Panthers, labor strikes, urban rebellions, anti-war protests.) Of course, when dealing with challenges abroad, violent force is usually the norm, as seen in Korea, Vietnam and dozens of other places. Fascism is when the capitalists decide to rule primarily through coercion (state violence), although the secondary aspect of indoctrination is still important. In the past, capitalists have opted for making coercion primary when faced with a restive, revolutionary-led working class. But does that mean that in the future there might not be other motivations? It seems possible that when faced with intractable crises — economic disarray, political chaos, environmental ruin and serious challenges from rival imperialists — the capitalists may decide it needs to discipline elements of its own class, as well as the working class, in order to adequately deal with the crises. I found this MR article on the subject to be persuasive: http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/it-could-happen-here Glenn ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
