John Reimann wrote: > Yes, Trump's administration is a bonapartist > one which still retains elements of bourgeois > democracy. The difference with his first > administration is that previously there were > more constraints, but he was clearly headed > in that direction back then.
> . . . it's good to see Anthony Teso use > the term "bonapartism" to describe the Trump > rule. However, I think he misses some points: > Bonapartism normally arises during a crisis > of capitalism, one in which the clash of > the classes becomes so severe that > the capitalists can no longer rule through > "normal" (democratic) means. Then the capitalists > have to help enable a ruler who is partially > independent of them. > That has been almost > the norm in Latin America for over a century. > In the United States, however, there was > no major clash, no major confrontation, between > the capitalist and the working classes. > Instead, while the capitalist class lost its > legitimacy within the working class (as well > as the petit bourgeoisie), the working class > itself was collapsing as an independent force > in society. The result was that a huge vacuum > opened up and politics, like nature, hates > a vacuum. Into that vacuum entered Donald Trump > in 2016. Very well said! Louis Proyect used to say the same thing: "Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.". John's formulation above, in my humble opinion, deserves to be more widely known. John continues: > Here, he hints that maybe the crisis will get > worse. That needs to be considered in more depth. > Doing so requires an unflinching recognition of > the crisis in the working class and where it may > lead. In other words, "doing the work" means, > first and foremost a full and open discussion > - and even a debate - on perspectives. I have a mixed reaction when I hear talk of full and open debate. On the hand hand--we desperately need it. On the other hand--it is nowhere to be found. I end up feeling like Diogenes, living naked in a barrel, and looking for an honest man. > Teso opposes seeking shortcuts. I agree. And so do I. > One such shortcut is avoiding these > difficult questions about the grounds > upon which we tread today and are likely > to be operating in the coming period. My question for John -- can you propose any practical measures that would encourage full and open debate? There must be *something* we can do. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#41947): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/41947 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/119660195/21656 -=-=- 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. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
