>There are minor matters that citizens can change through the ballot box, but ending imperialism isn't among them.
It depends what you mean by "imperialism". If you mean economic imperialism, no. But we aren't talking about economic imperialism, we are talking about political imperialism, the use of subject peoples through military force. The US military is subject to the control of democratically elected government, so it is subject to democratic will.
> Not only that, the working class cannot put an end to imperialism by non-electoral means either, _except_ under the most favorable circumstances -- the circumstances that do _not_ obtain today (and may or may not come into existence in the future -- there is no guarantee).
True, in the sense that the circumstances that are required is a popular will to do so. (You listening Grant, THAT'S a circular argument. You get it? They can't change things because the circumstances aren't right, in the sense that they don't want to change things.)
> The sooner American activists on the left realize that, the better, for, then, they will learn to wait patiently, without burning out or destroying themselves, while doing what they can in the meantime; and might possibly be able to seize the moment, if and when the right moment for change comes. That's my premise.
What they have to do in the meantime is influence public opinion. It seems to me to be a dangerous error to argue that public opinion doesn't matter.
>I don't know why you think that the working class can end imperialism by election. Perhaps what you mean by imperialism is different from what I understand it to be.
Perhaps. My definition would be the political sort, I regard the concept of economic imperialism as something of a stretch.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas