|
this kind of ruling makes me revert to marxist form:
the legal framework within which property relations works is nothing more or less than the legal framework of class warfare. what is interesting in this is that the petit bourgeois--who have been systematically invited through the distortions of conservative ideology to pretend that their interests are identical with those of the economic elite, for which the republican party, now as always, carries--um---water--now find that their interests are not identical with those of the economic elite.
what a shock.
it seems to me that the "little guy vs. the System" line that has been central to the debate in this thread is, in the main, incoherent as a way to understand what is going on here.
think about it: the claim that private enterprise can provide services that previously the state provided better and more efficiently--a claim central to the fantasyland that conservatives live in, but one that has been falsified over and over (think british rail or think the water supply problems in chile for example)--leads in the longer run to a blurring of the line between private and public functions.
as an argument, the above appears not to be a problem for the right, it seems--but now, like i said, the petit bourgeois--you know, the small business types, the small landholders---find themselves as a result of this ruling basically cast back into the wrong side of the class system.
that this line of conservative argument does not mesh at all with the obsession with private property rights is no surprise.
it is not that i support the ruling--i dont really care about it one way or another--but what i find surprising is the handwringing on the part of conservatives over it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|