>I myself don't think that "political" and "economic" are separable.
Yet they are separated. Economic power is in the hands of the owners of the means of production and political power is in the hands of the voters. Capitalists can influence who is elected to political office (with money) but they cannot simply nominate them directly. The voters can put some minor constraints on capital, but political government is prevented from managing it directly.
> 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?
That's quite true of course.
> 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?
They can't. The state is necessary to maintain order.
>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.
I repeat, the only reason both major parties support this is that the majority of American voters support this. Having America's military police the world for capital is something that Americans want, it isn't necessarily even in the interests of capital. It is in the interests of some capitalists perhaps, such as the oil industry, but there are many representatives of capital around the world who are quite unhappy with the situation.
>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.
I'm an instinctive materialist too, there's no conflict.
The concept of rule of law, separation of powers and all that, is an idea whose time has already come, as a result of the change in circumstances brought about by capitalism. The question is, why do you argue that the old ideas still prevail under the changed circumstances. I'd be happy to explore this subject further, its very relevant to many of the surface issues.
>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.
I don't know what that means. But the war of ideas is the only one that matters. Just because we're losing doesn't mean we should get a case of sour grapes.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas