******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
In reply to Mark Lause: My thesis is 1) Trump is to a great degree under the control of a foreign and rival capitalist class. 2) This means that to a large degree he is acting against the mainstream of the US capitalist class, which does not control its president. 3) This entire situation amounts to a major step towards bonapartism, which means a fundamental shift in how capitalism has ruled in the US. It is unprecedented. Mark says that the takeover of the Republicans by Trump is due to "donor dollars and their expectations." Just the opposite, as the situation of the US Chamber of Commerce - which I cited - shows. It is clear that the takeover is due to Trump's popularity with the base of the Republican Party, first and foremost the evangelicals. That is in contrast to the major donors, such as the Chamber of Commerce. Yes, a layer of them have come to accept and even support Trump because he's good for their bottom line in the short term. Again, as I pointed out, the WSJ is the prime example of this. But it is despite the fact of the Russian mafia capitalist influence. It is exactly because of the extremely short term (as in next quarter's financial report) orientation of this wing of the US capitalist class. Mark writes, "the process forms something of a continuum, in which there are certainly leaps." But his entire emphasis is on the "continuum". Yes, we have seen hints of what is happening in previous administrations. That includes the increasing gathering of power into the hands of the executive branch vs. the legislative. But what we are seeing now is very far from a continuum. It is not even a "leap"; it's a break from the past (in the influence of a rival capitalist class). Mark paraphrases Marx's comment that philosophers before him have sought to interpret the world. The point, however, is to change it." What Marx never said was that a large part of our task is, exactly, to understand the world. As to where the mass mobilizations will come from. That's most definitely something I've raised time and again. Unfortunately, we Marxists have almost zero ability to build such mobilizations. And inevitably, when they do come they will do so with massive confusions. That makes it all the more important to try to lend what little clarity we can. I have to say, I do think that Mark's overall reply exemplifies the approach of much of the socialist and even the Marxist left in that it fails to recognize exactly such a sharp break. John Reimann -- *“In politics, abstract terms conceal treachery.” *from "The Black Jacobins" by C. L. R. James Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
