* From: Jim Devine
Carl Dassbach wrote: > There is organized and concerted action by the dominant classes, as there > has always been, but there is no response by the other classes in American > society because they do not recognize and understand their interest as a > class. Yes, it seems like a struggle within the capitalist class, with labor and other "progressive" forces playing passive roles. -- ^^^^^^^ CB: There seem to be the first glimmerings of labor and working people expressing some independence from the capitalist class, and this is through the O election and Presidency. Of course, the US is nowhere near having a "final conflict" between the capitalists and working class; and Obama and the DP definitely represent sections of the capitalist class as well, a contradiction. But at least there is that contradiction within the Obama election and Presidency, with labor and the working class and "progressives" having increased influence. The labor and the "progressive" forces have been almost completely shut out for 30 years or so. Obama's election and presidency represent the first significant shove back against the capitalists by the workng class in a long time. Also, to the extent that this is an intra-capitalist struggle, that represents a split in the capitalist class. So, working class partisans should be interested in aggravating the split; and allying with the sections of the capitalist class that think it necessary to make reforms and concessions in the working class' interests. This struggle tends to separate the working people from the business class coming out of this long term situation where most of the politically active working people have been allied with the business interests; brings to the fore the objective contradiction that has been covered over and blunted so well for many years. Reaganism was the quintessence of this political psychology of the average person as a champion and ally of the rich. We are a long way from radical change, but at least Obama has very quickly aggravated rather than smoothed over the point of objective conflict. Witness all the pigs squealing. I'm glad to see LouPro mention Goldman Sachs, because I had an amateur guess about that firm since I didn't recall any mention of their having trouble. And clearly Obama through Geithner treats the whole crowd as his bosses or at least he fears them. But isn't the financial oligarchy united ? There isn't a split between G-S and other financial institutions is there ? The best I can say about bailout to the financial firms is that it makes it obvious to all that they are an oligarchy. It exposes them for what they are rather than allowing them to operate in relative anonymity and secret. Clearly, they have a higher status than GM, and all the companies that are squealing about the O budget. Rather than standing clear of this situation in ideological purity and virtue, why not use this moment of conflict within the capitalist class as an educational one, defining the ruling class structure for people ? Why is Obama ready to take on the Chamber of Commerce but not Goldman Sachs and Citi ? This implies something about the structure of the capitalist class today. Finance capital has absolute power; miscellaneous capital has relative power. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
