Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 09:27:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Splits in the ruling class



Justin writes ( was Re: Class and individuals ):
> > Lisa: "This is one way to look at a class - it has conflicts [of interest]
> > within it;".
> > 
> > Adam: No it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does.
>

Actually, Justin is right, and I knew that when I wrote "No it doesn't".
I was indulging in a little non dialectical stick bending, for which
I offer no apologies whatever.

There is a genuine argument in the British ruling class about how
far to go with European integration. This is a reflection of genuine
conflicts of interests. Certain companies are correct to see their 
interests as for a less tight integration, others correct to see
theirs as for going the whole hog with European Union.

However, they are completely united about the need to attack the
welfare state. The Euro Federalist ideology is more pro welfare, 
but the reality of EU monetary policy means attacks. The sceptics
are ideologically anti welfare anyway. Both groups are driven
by the needs of capitalist competition.

So long as we are divided, their divisions are secondary, but what
unites them ( opposition to us ) is primary. If we unite and fight
against them, their divisions become more important.

Bourgeois comentators point to Europe as the reason the Tories ditched
Thatcher. But Europe only became so important because Thatcher had
managed to unite the whole working class in active opposition to 
her policies ( principally, the poll tax, but there was a high 
level of wage militancy as well ).

Similarly, in France, all the capitalists and their parties united
behind Chirac until the mass strikes, when they splintered in a
million directions.

Anyway, the real reason for my stick bending was to start a discussion
about oppression, which I shall return to in my next post.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


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


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---