>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/11/01 03:51AM >>>
> CB: In a way, Mark is saying that the institution of universal suffrage
> is 3/4 of Gramsci's theory of hegemony as it works in the real world.
>
> The U.S. system was most blatantly undermined with the Kennedy
> assassination coup, for anyone with half a wit. I guess that historical
> example could predict either way with this one. The upheaval of the 60's
> might be in part impacted by mass disaffection growing out of the coup.
Yes, and yes, I think so: but is there not a big difference between assassination
(Tsar Aleksandr was assassinated, it did not shake the political order in Russia of
the 1870s too much) and a constitutional coup d'etat?
(((((((((
CB: Bourgeois democratic republics , the U.S. and others, have had plenty of coup
d'etats. They are always unconstitutional because we always mean by "coup" that some
legal rules, constitutional rules were violated. It is just that they often go through
steps to coverup the coup, exactly because of what you have been arguing - the
centrality of transition of power through mass voting and not violence or fraud by a
tiny minority to the legitimacy of bourgeois democracy. But we should not be surprised
by Bush's coup as if the U.S. bourgeoisie don't secretly violate their own legal rules
from time to time. The Kennedy assassination is just an obvious one that they can't
hide with all the diversionary documentaries.
An awful lot will be clearer
when we see just how far the Bush regime will go to entrench itself against popular
opposition, and how overtly illegal it is willing to be day-to-day. Or am I wildly
over-exaggerating everything?
Mark
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
