Rob wrote:
>Reckon you're making this out to be a little simpler than it is, Lou! The
>ruling class need not be particularly united on a host of particular policy
>issues (China's gonna present 'em with some pretty divisive stimuli, I
>reckon), there are often different ways to do someone's bidding (allocating
>cuts, for instance), and then there's the little matter of the
>superstructure sometimes preponderating in shaping particular events (as per
>that famous Bloch letter).
Of course there are divisions in the ruling class. In Germany the fraction
that was based on heavy industry, like the Krupps, tended to support
ultranationalists and then Nazis because the heavy investment in fixed
capital was highly vulnerable to strikes, etc. The fraction that was based
on light industry, retail, real estate and finance tended to back liberal
or social democratic candidates. The problem is that this fraction had no
commitment to defeating Hitler in the final analysis because when push came
to shove, it preferred Nazism to proletarian revolution. So by tailing
after the "lesser evil", you pave the way for fascism. That is history's
lesson. The way to drive back rightist assaults is found in the Seattle
protests, independent candidacies like McReynolds or Nader, etc.
Louis Proyect
(The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
