>You can't talk about socialism by identifying the responsibility of the working class with the guilt of the ruling class, thus constructing the spurious national "We" with a community of interests, playing into the hands of the very imperialists whom you oppose.
Your premise is that the working class is not responsible for the actions of the governments they elect. On the other hand I have detailed why they are responsible.
Since you offer no evidence or even the weakest of argument for your premise, I suppose it must be an article of faith for you, for which no reasons are necessary and no amount of evidence to the contrary will make any difference. I can only say that I reject this tenet and point out that it doesn't square with known facts.
Also, I said nothing about a "community of interests". You quoted Parenti in saying that:
>Part of the problem may lie in the bad habit that many people have in using "we" when they mean US political and financial elites. To say that "we" are thwarting democracy abroad, impoverishing other populations, or bombing innocent people, when really referring to the actions of the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the IMF and the WTO, is to assume a community of interest between the general public and those who regularly prey upon it, which is just what the predators want....
Parennti here pretends that there is no accountability by politicians to the people that elect them. According to this fiction, the electors have no responsibility for continuing to elect people who are guilty of crimes against humanity.
But it is not necessary to demonstrate a "community of interest" between those holding political office and the people who elect them to realise how silly this is. Plainly, the voters can remove these people from office and elect leaders who who are somewhat more decent.
In that sense, American electors are thwarting democracy abroad, impoverishing other populations and directing that innocent people be bombed. There is no getting away from this. It is unnecessary to show a "community of interest" in the sense of proving this to be true. Whether or not there is a real or perceived "community of interest" in these crimes would only have a bearing on the question of motive. Where the evidence is so overwhelming, it isn't necessary to demonstrate a motive to demonstrate responsibility for the crime. Likewise, you can't prove there is no responsibility merely by suggesting that there is no objective motive.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas