someone wrote:
>>The US has had no effective change of goverment in 41 years. Capital has
>>ruled throughout.
Brad wrote:
>Such an incisive analysis. Are we next to be told that there is no
>fundamental distinction between the Nazi party and Lyndon Johnson because
>they are both forms of rule of the bourgeoisie?
Ignoring Brad's snide remark, both views are correct. It's quite possible
for there to have been a change in government during the last 41 years (as
in Italy, where the government always seems to be changing) but without any
_effective_ change of government (as in Italy, where it's mostly the same
people who show up in the government until recently). Now the US isn't
Italy, since there's been no change of the sort that Italy has seen (with
the judges kicking out the corrupt Christian Democrats & Social Democrats,
etc.) But the fact is that different branches of Capital have ruled the US
during the last 41 years, in mean cop/nice cop succession, getting us to
confess.
Of course, Brad is right that there are very significant differences in
types of bourgeois rule (Nazis, LBJ), though some of the people outside the
US might not see the difference, having been subject to the mass
application of violence. Focusing only on domestic affairs to make it
easier to tell the difference, we could posit the _possibility_ for a
variety of different bourgeois regimes (on a spectrum: Sweden-type social
democracy, "New Deal" weak welfare state (LBJ), a state blatantly favoring
the short-term interests of business (Reagan), out-and-out fascist
repression, Hitlerian total irrationality). However, in practice, only the
weak welfare state and the blatant pro-business governments have prevailed
in the US. There's been nothing like the LBJ vs. Hitler contrast that Brad
is hoping to see.
BTW, why the cut-off at 41 years ago?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
