Got it. We generally agree on the elite motivation. But I think we disagree on government.
For me, bourgeois government is the structure of collaboration between and among the elite, not a separate entity. So I don’t think Musk wants to dismantle the US government, he is playing the game between and among other elites and the field of play is the government that represents the collaboration. In so far as the government limits the power of the elite, it generally does so with the consent of the elite. The problem is that the laws remain even though the state of play changes. The system designed by and for the robber barons of the gilded age didn’t work for the entrepreneurial 1950s and the system of the 1950s didn’t work for the financial transformation of the 1980s and the regulation of the 1980s didn’t work for the tech revolution. None of these were dismantlings of the US but reformations of the system from the old state made by the old elites for the old conditions into a new state by the new elites for the new conditions.
They fundamentally want the US to continue. It gives them a military, a way to repress the masses, access to massive natural resources, a reliable money spigot, and dominating power globally. They don’t want to dismantle it. They just need to reconfigure the machine collaboratively to maximize their power.
If this means a government “of the people, for the people, by the people” that maintains a monopoly on violence to ensure no one is above the law/Constitution, then I disagree.
If this means a puppet state that the “elite” holds oligarchal control over, but maintain whatever facade of democracy they need to, then I agree. But I would not call that the US govt. You could say that because they call it the “US Govt” it’s still the US govt, and you could say that because they call it the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it’s a democratic republic. But I would disagree on both points.
Yeah obviously they’re not going to personally crown themselves as supreme ruler on a towering citadel constructed where the whitehouse once stood like a caricature of a villain. But if the structure of “government” that we end up with is completely powerless against them, then it’s objectively not the US anymore; it’s just the “elite”, the govt is whatever they say, they are the govt, wealth only flows wherever they say it’s allowed to in order to maintain power.
And that’s always their goal, to become the govt, that’s what I mean.
Got it. We generally agree on the elite motivation. But I think we disagree on government.
For me, bourgeois government is the structure of collaboration between and among the elite, not a separate entity. So I don’t think Musk wants to dismantle the US government, he is playing the game between and among other elites and the field of play is the government that represents the collaboration. In so far as the government limits the power of the elite, it generally does so with the consent of the elite. The problem is that the laws remain even though the state of play changes. The system designed by and for the robber barons of the gilded age didn’t work for the entrepreneurial 1950s and the system of the 1950s didn’t work for the financial transformation of the 1980s and the regulation of the 1980s didn’t work for the tech revolution. None of these were dismantlings of the US but reformations of the system from the old state made by the old elites for the old conditions into a new state by the new elites for the new conditions.
They fundamentally want the US to continue. It gives them a military, a way to repress the masses, access to massive natural resources, a reliable money spigot, and dominating power globally. They don’t want to dismantle it. They just need to reconfigure the machine collaboratively to maximize their power.
The difference in what we’re saying is semantic.
If this means a government “of the people, for the people, by the people” that maintains a monopoly on violence to ensure no one is above the law/Constitution, then I disagree.
If this means a puppet state that the “elite” holds oligarchal control over, but maintain whatever facade of democracy they need to, then I agree. But I would not call that the US govt. You could say that because they call it the “US Govt” it’s still the US govt, and you could say that because they call it the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it’s a democratic republic. But I would disagree on both points.
Yeah obviously they’re not going to personally crown themselves as supreme ruler on a towering citadel constructed where the whitehouse once stood like a caricature of a villain. But if the structure of “government” that we end up with is completely powerless against them, then it’s objectively not the US anymore; it’s just the “elite”, the govt is whatever they say, they are the govt, wealth only flows wherever they say it’s allowed to in order to maintain power.
And that’s always their goal, to become the govt, that’s what I mean.