G'day Carrol,
>One must assume, rather, that they know what they are doing, and
>that they are doing it competently. Identify their motives with their
>actions ... But it's silly to argue. As Tom says, it's axiomatic.
I'd say it's an axiom that ruling classes tend to behave in ways consistent
with their perceived self-interest - but (a) there are ruling classes (eg
third world compradors) and there are ruling classes (Wall St's homo
armanirolexicus, the Bushes, the Gores etc), and their interests (both
perceived and real) are no edifice of definitive confluence, and (b) they
can be wrong in their determination of their interests (as can we all,
Carrol).
>And it's really not very easy to carry on a conversation about politics
>with anyone who can't grasp the political equivalent of a + b = b + a.
How you must suffer, Carrol. Still, you muddle through, eh?
Oh, and maybe there just ain't a political equivalent for a+b=b+a. Mebbe a
and b can't be isolated from the dynamic complex of relations in which they
exist and in which we perceive them. Maybe the ruling class's (if I may
employ so simplistic a term) perceptions of their reality mediate their
pursuit of their interests, eh? Just maybe they're no more likely than
anyone else to have access to the noumenal. Just because people's
ideologies are conditioned by their material interests doesn't mean (a)
that the latter writes the former word-for-word, nor (b) that
contradictions aren't immanent in the unity of the two.
I think it'd be a big political mistake, for instance, to see in every
born-again, xenophobic fundamentalist Evangelist a person who uses the
label to pursue a rational hidden agenda, or who will always behave
precisely in her
material interests at the time. Most of 'em actually do BELIEVE.
'Cept the ones who get on the telly, natch ...
Cheers,
Rob.
