I myself don't think that "political" and "economic" are separable. Without occasional use of military force and constant threat of it, how can the ruling class ensure the continuing survival of capitalism on the periphery? As long as capitalism survives, how can the use of armed forces to handle fallouts of capital's domination (be they spontaneous riots, organized resistance, or terrorism) be abolished?
As for "democratically elected government," I don't think that formal democracy of universal franchise, etc. can bring about substantial democratic control over the US military, as the two parties that dominate the electoral system are both committed to the imperial role that the US military play, i.e. policing the world for capital.
At 1:50 AM -0700 9/21/02, billbartlett at dodo.com.au wrote:
>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.)
I subscribe to the basic tenet of materialism: changes in circumstances must precede changes in ideas.
At 1:50 AM -0700 9/21/02, billbartlett at dodo.com.au wrote:
>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.
In the meantime, sure, it doesn't hurt to get involved in a Gramscian struggle, fighting a war of positions. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>