>recently citing that famous line about the most reactionary sectors of
>finance capital being the origin of fascism...
such a line was intended to justify the popular front. if only the most
reactionary parts of the ruling class support fascism then why not ally with
other parts of it.
pete
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:15420] The US Dollar (spend it fast as you can)
> No, I didn't mean you are in the bourgeois class. ( I'm in the petit
bourgeoisie myself , whether I like it or not )
>
> I'm thinking a socialist is someone who supports working class interests
and opposes bourgeois class interests, and aims to end capitalism. This is
why a socialist aims to support working class(wide) unity.
>
>
> Non-socialists of all types - trade unionist, social-democrat or liberal -
in some sense supports both working class and bourgeois class interests,
seeing them as compatible in some sense or ways.
>
> But I don't see how one can be loyal to both classes ( whether in one of
the main classes or not ). Or to the specific comment in the thread, I don't
see how "real (enduring) workng class solidarity" could be achieved by
those also supporting bourgeois class interests. Maybe you are saying
temporary and situational working class solidarity ?
>
> Charles B
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/20/01 12:18PM >>>
> If you're one of those you don't identify
> w/the bourgeois class. Just because you're
> in a class doesn't mean you serve its interests.
>
> mbs
>
>
>
> But don't you have a conflict of interest and loyalties between the
working
> class and the bourgeois class ?
>
> Charles
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/01 04:34PM >>>
> Plenty, if you're a smart trade unionist,
> social-democrat, or even a labor-friendly liberal.
>
> mbs
>
> ))))))))
>
> CB: Speaking of (working) class solidarity, isn't that a socialist concept
?
> What use do non-socialists have for working class solidarity ?
>
>
