******************** 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.
*****************************************************************
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:00 AM John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> wrote:
> . . . Dayne seems to use bonapartism and fascism interchangeably. . .
>
No, didn't mean to give the impression i use bonapartism and fascism
interchangeably. I think of Trump as a fascist - at least proto-fascist -
not as a Bonapartist. In particular i was responding to your frequent
comments on how much of the capitalist class dislikes Trump.
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:00 AM John Reimann <1999wild...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Dayne Goodwin, for actually commenting on the essence of the
> article.
>
> Let's look at it from the other point of view - that of bourgeois
> democracy. Under that form of rule, the bulk of the capitalist class must
> be able to maintain a widespread base of support in the working class and
> the petit bourgeois. Not just general support for capitalism, but also for
> the policies it deems as necessary. As the example of the Chamber of
> Commerce shows, I think that that support has largely slipped away. Take
> some other issues: The TPP, "free" trade in general, the Paris Climate
> Accord, the accord with Iran... And, most important, whom it wants elected
> as president. Its first choice was Jeb Bush. Then came Hillary Clinton. The
> overwhelming bulk of the capitalist class did not favor Trump.
>
> I think that bonepartism arises when the capitalist class can no longer
> rule in the old way and the working class cannot take power - usually
> nowadays because of the role of its leadership. In that sort of situation,
> a strong man or woman arises, partly out of control of the ruling class
> itself. Not all bonapartist regimes are identical. Not by a long shot. On
> the one hand, we have the examples of the PRI in Mexico, which ruled for 70
> years. It was the old Lazaro Cardenas who brought it to power, exactly out
> of the sort of situation I described. Once in power, he and the PRI leaned
> on the working class, at times ruling in its favor, and along the way
> looting the capitalist class. Then there is the old Batista dictatorship in
> Cuba. Interestingly, he originally came to power as a "leftist" and he
> ruled with the support of the Cuban Communist Party. I think it was similar
> with Peron in Argentina. Then there is Putin, who I would argue is also a
> bonapartist dictator.
>
> Note that in all these cases, bourgeois democratic freedoms are not
> completely eliminated.
>
> Dayne seems to use bonapartism and fascism interchangeably. I look at it
> differently. I think fascists have a crazed mass base and their own private
> army of thugs. Hitler's SS are the classic example. That's what allows
> fascism to go a lot further. (I used to think there was a hard and fast
> difference between bonapartism and fascism, but I'm not so sure anymore.
> Look at Pinochet in Chile. He went nearly as far as some fascists did. Or
> Papa Doc Duvalier in Haiti, who had his private army of thugs, the Ton Ton
> Macoute.)
>
> In neither case is the mainstream of the capitalist class "thrilled" with
> its ruler. In Mexico. the capitalists large and small constantly grumbled
> about how the PRI dictatorship ripped them off. (Read Traven's "The State"
> for a description.) While a wing of the capitalist class is happy with
> Trump's policies that lead to improved quarterly results, there is also a
> major wing that is deeply unhappy. For a hint at what is coming, look at
> the proposed merger of AT&T and Time Warner that Trump's (in)Justice
> Department fought. Why did they fight it? As retribution for Timer Warner's
> editorial policies against Trump. I think this is clear from reading the
> opinion pieces in the NY Times and the Washington Post, vs. the Wall St.
> Journal the deep, deep divisions in the US capitalist class. And even his
> supporters are very critical of some of his important policies, especially
> his trade policies.
>
> Finally, as far as the Putin-Trump relationship: Sure, Trump gets
> something out of it. He gets the silence of Putin as far as his (Trump's)
> past. He also gets the electoral help. And while the extreme weakness of
> the Democrats' candidate was by far and away the main reason that Trump
> won, I don't think we can dismiss the effect of that support. According to
> Craig Unger ("House of Trump, House of Putin") studies by UC Berkeley and
> Swansea University in Wales concluded that Russian intervention swung 3.23%
> of the vote for Trump. That was overall, but because of the electoral
> college system, what matters is state-by-state. Trump won Wisconsin 47.2%
> to 45.5%. He won Pennsylvania 48.2% to 47.5%. Etc. So, if Russian
> intervention just tipped the vote in such states by half of that overall
> estimate, it made the difference. (NOTE: I am NOT saying that Trump won
> because of Putin. It's like a football game where one side, which normally
> is faster and stronger, vastly underperforms with a number of fumbles,
> missed catches, and general lack of attention. But because they're faster
> and stronger, they keep the game close. Then the ref blows a call in favor
> of the other team. That call was the final straw, but all the fumbles and
> lack of attention of the stronger team is what really made the ultimate
> difference.)
>
> The main thing is this: Maybe Trump does not represent a qualitative step
> towards bonapartism, although I believe he does. But in any case, never
> before in US history have we had a president who had such ties to a rival
> capitalist class, and one that rules through outright bonapartism at that.
> Shouldn't that cause us to step back and look at the situation in the US
> through fresh eyes?
>
> John Reimann
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 10:35 PM Dayne Goodwin <daynegood...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> some thoughts -
>> doesn't 'Bonapartism' develop in a situation of relative stalemate in the
>> class struggle? Is that the situation in the U.S. today?
>>
>> Does past historical experience indicate that the bulk of the capitalist
>> class is typically thrilled to adjust to relying more and more on a fascist
>> dictator?
>>
>> Is the Putin-Trump relationship one-sided or do they both find some
>> advantages in it? Maybe Trump's 'friendly' relationship with Putin is an
>> ancillary asset as Trump jockeys for power in the U.S. capitalist state?
>>
>
> --
> *“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
