Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 13:41:59 -0800
From: djones-AT-uclink.berkeley.edu (rakesh bhandari)
Subject: Re: Buchanan: right-wing populist?


>From Alex Cockburn in the latest *Nation*, re: Buchanan: 

> or he can deepen his message of populist 
>economic nationalism: Us against the Money Power, Us against the 
>World. Now that the Russians aren't a problem anymore, right-wing 
>populists can go back to talking about the banks and Wall Street.

>The elites must be feeling irked. Just when they had Clinton safely 
>guiding the Democratic Party into well-patrolled corporate waters, 
>with leftists purged or neutered, here comes a populist attacking big 
>business, rocking their boat."

A populist attacking big business?  This is pathetic.  

A populist who offers fascist border controls as a substitute for any and
all legislation on the behalf of labor? A populist who extols the good ole
days of segregration?  A populist who supports stagnant industry at the
expense of more powerful ones? A politician who because he accepts the
existing *social relations of production* can only maintain the fascade of
radicalism  through more and more demagogic attacks on money power and 
Jews (see long passage in a previous post from William J Blake in 1936 in
the *New Masses*, a journal to which AC has, we can be sure, access). 

Buchanan is not rocking the boat; he may be getting in the way of a more
effective strategy for world market domination.  For this reason, he is
being opposed.  He is not being opposed for the class insurgency only an
opportunistic pundit and reactionary workers potentially priviliged by his
racism and sexism could think he actually represents.  

But the problem is that Cockburn can embrace Buchanan for the militancy he
thinks he potentially represents only because he does not care a whit for
the way such militancy is inextricably tied up with hatred towards
minorities, gays  and women.  He wants to see something benign in this
because he only cares about the attack on the elite.  And damn whoever else
 takes heat in the battle. This is irresponsible and frankly idiotic. 

As irresponsible as all you Militia symatheticos.  Don't you get it.  The
government kills a lot of people.  Why do Militia members go up in arms
when the FBI takes out that white supremacist Weaver or whatever his name
is? Why is it that this is what provokes them to start a movement, that
this becomes their symbol?  What does this tell you about the future they
want?  Weaver only wanted  his family to be free of the cities, minorities
and decadence.  And the government won't let us to do that?  Let's arm
ourselves.  



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------