I wrote:
The way I understand politics ... is that people rule
a country and attain their personal goals only if they form coalitions
with other interest groups. This means that they may have to
compromise and that things get done when they serve a variety of
different overlapping and mutually-reinforcing goals.
The current crop of GOPsters have united a coalition of several
different groups, in no particular order of importance and some of
which overlap...
my inner critic tells me that this is nothing but the pluralist theory
of politics. I think the theory is fine (and works even in
"totalitarian" bureaucratic states). How I differ from the pluralists
is that I see a severe structural bias to favor the interest of
moneyed interest over nonmoneyed interests under capitalism. (There
are other biases, of course, but I'll skip them now.) So while the
pluralists believe(d) that competition amongst political coalitions
generally benefits "the public interest," I think it generally
benefits the capitalist class interest as currently perceived (which
may or may not be the same as their long-term interests).
--
Jim Devine / "Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the
sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The
fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the
unfortunate." -- Bertrand Russell
